LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

Atty. Jesus Vincent B. Capellan

| This reviewer was based on Atty. Capellan’s notes, following his 2015-2016
course syllabus. “>” indicates my own notes. The notes and examples were taken
lectures. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. ☺|
from my homeworks/Sir’s lectures.

COURSE DESCRIPTION: Course on the methods of reasoning, syllogisms,

arguments and expositions, deductions, the truth table demonstrating invalidity
and inconsistency of arguments. It also includes the logical organization of legal
language and logical testing of judicial reasoning.

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

It is the critical presentation of investigative skills and analytical study on the
application of laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and principles for an effective
advocacy.
 A nimus
ni mus L eg endi  -
 - soul of lawyering
Critical and analytical
- Subsumed in the concept of (?)
- Effective way of advocacy: articulate, good command of English language
> Investigative Skills  – 
 –  concise and logical presentation of relevant facts, which
are material to the issue; not all facts must be considered, only those that are
competent and in consideration of the exclusionary rules (Art. 3, Sec. 2&12 of
Consti.)
> Critical presentation of Investigative Skills  –   –  treating facts, getting rid of
inessentials so that they are cohesive; application of style in interviewing clients,
witnesses, validating facts; arranging/utilizing a method; keen sense of
discernment
> Advocacy –
Advocacy – act act of pleading/arguing a case or position

CHARACTERISTICS OF ADVOCATE:
Personality - deep concentration, airtight memory, confidence, ability to
rework, reshape (edit work), hone, polish, articulateness
Philosophy - firm resolve or purpose
Endurance - discipline
Drive –
Drive – determination,
 determination, goal to succeed
Speed  – 
 –  ability to act swiftly
s wiftly based on one’s counsel, (?) and ability to
handle the language
Wit –
Wit – one
 one with greatest combination of skills, understanding of principles that
govern
Ethical –
Ethical – measured
 measured by the length and breadth of his integrity

COURSE SYLLABUS

I. INTRODUCTION
 A. ALLIED SUBJECT
SUBJECT and THEIR DISTINCTIONS
DISTINCTIONS
1. Legal Research and Counseling
> LegRes –
LegRes  – methods
 methods in the preparation of legal opinions, memoranda; process of
identifying and retrieving information necessary to support legal decision-making;
its goal is to find authority that will aid in finding a solution to a legal problem

Maris|1
> Leg Coun – rendition of advice and guidance concerning a legal matter; process
of helping a client make a decision
2. Statutory Construction
> use and force of statutes ad principles and methods of their construction and
interpretation
3. Practice Court
> training on the preparation and drafting of complaints, petitions, answers,
pleadings and the art of effective oral advocacy
4. Legal and Judicial Forms
> training in the drafting of various legal documents, deeds, pleadings, briefs

> Legal Technique integrates the skills taught in the allied subjects

B. BASIC SKILL
1. Legal Knowledge
2. Legal Proficiency
3. Written and Verbal Communication

BASIC SKILL

A. LEGAL KNOWLEDGE
In General:
Level of familiarity, understanding, perception or being conversant with laws
and legal principles and their application in common.
 Associate with recall and understanding of theoretical aspects of a subject
matter.
 As distinguished from practical evaluation and analysis in Legal Proficiency.
 Ability to recollect –  specific provision of law and appropriate interpretative
 jurisprudence
How various provisions interrelate with one another
Rationale behind these provisions
Various interpretative jurisprudence considered as doctrine or landmark
cases decided en banc
Role of specific legal provisions within the context of a given social
environment
Evolution of legal provisions and
the effect of changes in these legal provisions (statcon  –  spirit of
law)
in addressing present day concerns
Ethical boundaries

B. LEGAL PROFICIENCY
Use of the knowledge of the law for the solution of legal problems
Deals with:
Facts
Issues they present
 Arguments that support one’s side of the issue and
Conclusion in the light of the law and jurisprudence
Specifically, it is the skill in sifting or probing through a complex maze of
conflicting facts and argument

Maris|2
 To arrive at facts that are relevant to the solution of a legal problem
 Ability to maintain professional skepticism in the appreciation of facts
 Ability to determine what specific provisions of law are
 Applicable to a specific set of facts
In the light of jurisprudence
 Ability to determine how current jurisprudence doctrines may possibly change
in the light of
Changes in factual and legal environment
Changes in the court’s composition, and the
 Application of various schools of jurisprudence
 Ability to determine the current applicability of existing laws and
 jurisprudence considering the changing social environment
 Ability to craft proposal for new law, rule and regulation, new (?) or
amendments
 Ability to apply proficiency (?)

C. WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMUNICATION

* Problems in modern legal writing: flabby, prolix, obscure, (?)

* Legal writer must consider these subjects, among others:
Vocabulary – choice of appropriate words
Organization –effective arrangement of thoughts
Topic flow – appropriate articulation of concepts
Transitions – connect between ideas
Structure – proper elements of a document
 Audience – nature of expected readership
Tone – manner of spirit of addressing readers
Style – types of sentences and cadence of prose
Clarity – fit between idea and expressions
 Accuracy – fit between expression and reality
Timing - when to write and when, and how often, to edit

BLACK LETTER RULE

- use in reference to a law, technical term or case.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD ANSWER:

Begin with a thesis or conclusion, if appropriate (first sentence should show
the direct answer)
 Avoid beating around the bush
Correct statement of “black letter rule” (of the law, principle, case, law,
technical terms, etc.)
 Avoid legal lecturing
Concentrate on basic issues
No mistakes in using facts
Interweaving of key facts and elements in the black letter rule
No mere repetition of facts, then specifying the black letter rule
Good analysis, not just correct legal rule
No repetition of statements
Position taking when required
 Appropriate use of policy and principle
Legible handwriting

Maris|3
 Neat page
Use of margins, indentions, proper numbering, headings and paragraphs
Responsive to instructions
 Accomplished on time

II. Philosophy
Philia  – love; Sophia  – Wisdom = love or pursuit of wisdom
- it is the knowledge of all things through their ultimate causes acquired through
the light of reasons (St. Thomas Aquinas)
- It’s a study that seeks to understand the mysteries of existence and reality,
discover the nature of truth and knowledge, and find what is of basic value and
importance in life.

Branches
1.1. Logic
Logos  – thought or reasoning
- It is the science and art of reasoning and critical thinking, concerned with
distinguishing what is true from what is wrong, valid from invalid, and be critical
about it.
- It provides sound methods for distinguishing good from bad reasoning.

1.2. Psychology
Psyche  – mind; Logos  – study = study of the mind
- A branch of philosophy that deals with the study of human behavior and human
mind.
-It aims to understand the role of mental functions of an individual on behavior,
while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie
certain behaviors.

1.3. Epistemology
Episteme  – knowledge; logos  – study = study of knowledge
- also known as the theory of knowledge
- It’s concerned with the nature of knowledge, its scope, possibility, and general
basis.
- seeks the criteria for truth and in distinguishing what is adequate (true) from
inadequate (false) knowledge

1.4. Metaphysics
Meta  – beyond 
- deals with the study of the nature and realities of being, and of all reality (visible
and invisible, what is it, why is it, and how are we to understand it)
- seeks basic criteria for determining what sorts of things are real
- considered as the most abstract part of philosophy

1.5. Aesthetics
 Aesthesis  – of sense perception or harmony 
- deals with beauty and harmony, hence, also known as philosophy of art
- it’s a study of art and of value judgments about art, and of beauty in general

Maris|4
- questions in aesthetics include: how artistic creations are to be interpreted and
evaluated, how the arts are related to one another, to natural beauty and other
aspects of human life

1.6. Ethics
Ethos  – norms
- deals with the study of morality of human act and judgment
- it takes up the meanings of moral concepts and formulates principles to guide
moral decisions
- also called us moral philosophy as it seeks to determine whether an action is to
be considered good or bad

1.6. Cosmology
Cosmos- universe; logos  – study
- the study of inanimate objects in the universe, the material world – its origin,
nature, structure, ultimate principles of bodily natures and natural laws

2. Logic
It is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from
incorrect reasoning.
It is an organized body of knowledge, or science that evaluates arguments.
It has the aim to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as
criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing
arguments of our own.
To discover and make available those criteria that can be used to test arguments
for correctness.
 A Logician is concerned primarily with the correctness of the completed process of
reasoning.
TEST
How would you distinguish between correct and incorrect reasoning?
TOOLS = knowing the methods, principles and techniques.
Does the conclusion reached follow from the premises used or assumed?
Do the premises provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion?
If the premises do provide adequate grounds for affirming the conclusion,
If asserting the premises to be true warrant asserting the conclusion also to
be true,
Then the reasoning is correct. Otherwise, it is incorrect.

2.1. Syllogism
 Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises.
 A deductive argument consisting of two premises and one conclusion.
> The logical form of an argument.
Ex: All congressmen are politicians. Manny Pacquiao is a congressman.
Therefore, Manny Pacquiao is a politician.

2.2. Proposition
a statement; what is typically asserted using a declarative sentence, and hence
always either true or false – although its truth or falsity may be unknown.
Typically stated in declarative sentences, but they sometimes appear as
commands, rhetorical questions, or noun phrases.

Maris|5
 RHETORICAL QUESTION  –  an utterance used to make a statement, but which
because it is in interrogative form and is therefore neither true nor false, does not
literally assert anything.
> sometimes used synonymously with “Statement”
. STATEMENT
 A proposition; what is typically asserted by a declarative sentence, but not the
sentence itself. Every statement must either be true or false, although the truth or
falsity of a given statement may be unknown.
Is a sentence that is either true or false  –  in other words, typically a declarative
sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence.
> may be compound, meaning it contains several propositions
Ex: God exists.
The Earth is further from the Sun than Venus.

2.3. Argument
Is any group of propositions of which on is claimed to follow from the others,
which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.
Is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to
provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion).
> An argument is valid if the conclusion is true whenever the premises are all true.
The propositions in an argument must be related to one another.
TWO BASIC GROUPS:
Those in which the premises really do support the conclusion;
Those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to.
In order to distinguish correct from incorrect arguments, they must be
recognized when they occur and must be able to identify the premises and
conclusions of those arguments.
ENTHYMEME – An argument that is stated incompletely, the unstated part of
it being taken for granted.
not stated but is assumed to be understood
the arguer supposes that it is unquestioned common knowledge
its effectiveness depends on the hearer’s knowledge

** Recognizing Arguments  –  in general, a passage contains an argument if it

purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument.

Conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:

 At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons. – it
must express a factual claim.
There must be a claim that the alleged evidence supports or implies
something, that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence
or reasons. – it must express an inferential claim.
- is simply the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning
process.
- that something supports or implies something or that something follows
from something.

** Non Inferential Pas s ag es (No A rg ument)

 A warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard
against a dangerous or detrimental situation.

Maris|6
 A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about
some future decision or course of conduct.
 A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone happens to
believe or think about something.
Loosely associated statements may be about the same general subject, but
they lack a claim that one of them is proved by the others.
 A report consists of a group of statements that they convey information about
some topic or event.
 An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence
followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence.
If the purpose of the subsequent sentences in the passage is not only to flesh
out the topic sentence BUT also to prove it, then the passage is an argument.
 An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is intended
to show something means or how it is done.
 An explanation is an expression that purports to shed light on some event or
phenomenon.
Explanandum – is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be
explained.
Explanans –is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the
explaining.
Conditional statement is an “if (antecedent), … then (consequent) …” statement.
Not argument because there is no assertion that either the antecedent or the
consequent is true. But their inferential content may be re-expressed to for
arguments. Thus:
a. A single conditional statement is not an argument
b. A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or conclusion
(or both) of an argument
c. The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed
to form an argument.

2.3.1. Premise
In an argument, the prepositions upon which inference is based; the prepositions
that are claimed to provide grounds or reasons for the conclusion.
 Are the statements that set forth the reasons and evidence.
> The basic statement upon whose truth an argument is based, a basic assertion

Premise indicators:
(not conclusive that there is an argument; might be an explanation to other
paragraphs)
Since, Because, For, As, Follows from, As shown by, Inasmuch as, In that, As
indicated by,
Owing to, As indicated by, The reason is that, For the reason that, May be inferred
from,
May be derived from, May be deduced from, In view of the fact that, Seeing that,
Given that

2.3.2. Conclusion
In any argument, the proposition to which the other propositions in the argument
are claimed to give support, or for which they are given as reasons.
Of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of other
propositions of the argument, and these other propositions, which are affirmed (or

Maris|7
assumed) as providing support or reasons for accepting the conclusion, are the
premises of that argument.
Is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words,
the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises.

Conclusion indicators: (highlights an argument)

Therefore, Hence, Thus, So, Accordingly, In consequence, Consequently, Proves
that,
 As a result, For this reason, Wherefore, It must be implied that, Implies that, For
these reasons, It follows that, We may infer, I conclude that, Which shows that,
Which means that,
Which entails that, Which implies that, Which allows us to, Which infer that,
Which points to the conclusion that, We may conclude, It follows that

Ex:
Hillary Clinton must be a communist
Premises spy.
She supports socialized health care.
It follows that everyone who supports socialized health care is a communist spy. –
Conclusion

1 is a prime number. 3 is a prime number.

Premises

5 is a prime number. 7 is a prime number.

Therefore, all odd integers between 0 and 8 are prime numbers. - Conclusion

2.4. Opposition
> the relationship between two prepositions having the same subject and the
same predicate but differ as to quantity or to quality, or to both
> this is the process of inferring from the known preposition (i.e. a proposition that
is already assumed to be true or false) to its opposite proposition
Ex:
If all Filipinos are patriotic is true, then not all Filipinos are patriotic will be false.

If some bananas are apples is false, then all bananas are apples will also be false.

If some students are lazy is false, then not all students are lazy will be true.

2.5. Inference
 A process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of
some other proposition/s
It is the reasoning process expressed by an argument
It is used interchangeably with ‘argument’
> the process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of
some other propositions

2.5.1. Deduction
 A deductive argument claims to provide conclusive grounds for its
conclusion; if it does so it is valid, if it does not it is invalid.
 An argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion
to be false given that the premises are true.

Maris|8
> A process of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from a set of premises. It
is usually confined to cases in which the conclusion is supposed to follow from the
premises.
> It works from the general to the specific and often referred to as a top-down
approach.
Ex:
a. There were 20 people originally. There are 19 persons currently.
Therefore, someone is missing.
b. Peter is Jon’s brother, so Jon must be Peter’s brother.
c. You will succeed if you work hard. You will be happy if you succeed.
Therefore, you will be happy if you work hard.

2.5.2. Induction
 An inductive argument claims that its premises give only some degree of
probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion.
 An argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable that the conclusion
is false given that the premises are true.
> A process of reasoning from empirical premises to empirical conclusions. It is a
kind of ampliative argument, wherein the conclusion goes beyond their premises.
In other words, something beyond the context of the premises is inferred as
probable or supported by them.
> It works from observations toward generalization, probabilities, and theories;
often called a bottom-up approach.
Ex:
a. There is smoke. Therefore, there is fire.
b. Two-thirds of Filipinos I know in Canada are illegal immigrants. Therefore,
majority of
Filipinos in Canada are illegal immigrants.
c. I have seen many persons with creased earlobes who had heart attacks.
Therefore, all
persons who have creased earlobes are prone to have heart attacks.

2.6. Hypothesis
> a tentative insight or concept that is not yet verified but if true would explain
certain facts or phenomena.
> a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument
> it is the antecedent of a conditional statement
Ex:
a. If he studies diligently, he will top the bar exam.
b. If a number is divisible by 10, then it is divisible by 2.
c. Duterte will be a good presidential candidate if he decides to run.

2.7. Reasoning
> The process of using a rational, systematic series of steps bases on sound
procedures and given statements to arrive at a conclusion.
> The use of logical thinking in order to find results or draw conclusions

2.7.1. A Priori
From the earlier

Maris|9
 – literally, “before experience”; a priori knowledge is before or independent of
experience. For example, according to some philosophers, we know every event
has a cause even though we have not experienced every event.
> it rests on rational intuitions or insights; knowledge gained through deduction
and not through empirical evidence
Ex: a. All squares are rectangles.
b. It is always wrong to punish an innocent person.
c. All rubies are red.

2.7.2. A Posteriori
From what comes after
 – literally, “after experience”; a posteriori knowledge is that derived from
experience. This is in contrast to a priori knowledge.
> used to indicate inductive reasoning; something that is known based on logic
that is derived from experience
> reason can be involved in an a posteriori statement, but that reason still stems
from an assumption made empirically, rather than one derived from an abstract
truth
Ex: a. One’s date of birth is something known a posteriori.
b. The chemical component of water is H2O.

3. Fallacies of Relevance
- a fallacy in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion
> The premises of arguments with fallacies of relevance support a different
conclusion, and the conclusion of such arguments require different premises if it is
to be established.
> the connection between the premises and conclusion is emotional

3.1. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

 Appeal to Ignorance
> occurs when it is asserted that a given statement is true or false simply because
it cannot be proven otherwise
> it appeals to a lack of information to prove appoint
Ex:
a. Ghosts or aliens exist since no one has been able to disprove their existence.
b. Pedro is an honest student because I’ve never caught him cheating.

3.2. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam

 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
> appeal is made to parties who do not have the proper authority or legitimate
claim to authority in the matter at hand
> it substitutes general eminence for genuine expertise
> it cites the expertise of a person who has reputation in a certain field
Ex:
a. Take this medicine for your stomachache. It relieved my stomachache before.
b. I believe my friend’s political opinions. He’s smart since he’s a philosophy
teacher.

3.3. Argumentum Ad Hominem

 Argument against the Person

Maris|10
 a fallacy in which the argument relies upon an attack against the person
taking the position
an informal fallacy committed when, rather than attacking the substance of
some position, one attacks the person of its advocate, either abusively or as a
consequence of his or her special circumstances.

Positioning the Well  –  A variety of abusive ad hominem argument in

which continued rational exchange is undermined by attacking the good
faith or intellectual honesty of the opponent.
> the attack on the person is logically irrelevant to the truthfulness of the argument
Ex:
a. Don’t believe his expose, he was a drug-addict.
b. You support the Bangsamoro Law only because you’re a Noytard.
c. You say I’m not smart? You too!

3.4. Argumentum Ad Populum

 Appeal to People or Populace
 An informal fallacy in which the support given for some conclusion is an
appeal to popular belief
 An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion
is an inappropriate appeal to multitude.
> one attempts to influence other’s judgment by appealing to their prejudices and
attitudes that have nothing to do with matter at hand
> uses emotion-laden terms to sway people en masse
Ex:
a. Facial cleanser advertisement: Ang sikreto ng mga gwapo!
b. Religion: If you do this or that, you will be saved.

3.5. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam

 Appeal to Pity
 A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather
than on reason.
 An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion is
emotions – fear, envy, pity of the listeners
> appeal to emotion, which is misplaced
Ex:
a. Lawyer: Acquit my client for he is the breadwinner of his family.
b. Suitor: Accept my love for I have undergone numerous hardships in life.

3.6. Argumentum Ad Baculum

 Appeal to Force
a fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or veiled threat of force
committed when force, or the threat of force, is relied on to win consent.
> accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the reader/listener from
acknowledging a missing premise that if acknowledged would be seen as false
Ex:
a. Judge, rule in favor of my client or I’ll expose your love affair with your clerk.
b. Superintendent, cut the budget or do I need to remind you of the fate of your
predecessors who cannot keep down costs.
c. Teacher threatens students with failing grade if the latter do not give him a
satisfactory rating.

Maris|11
 Red Herring
a fallacy in which attention is deliberately deflected away from the issue
under discussion
an informal fallacy committed when some distraction is used to mislead and
confuse

Straw Man
an fallacy in which an opponent’s position is depicted as being more extreme
or unreasonable than is justified by what was actually asserted.
 An informal fallacy committed when the position of one’s opponent is
misrepresented ad that distorted position is made the object of attack.

4. Fallacies of Presumption
 Any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption that is
dubious, unwarranted, or false.
 A group of fallacies that occur when the premises of an argument presume
what they purport to prove.
> concerned with problems of deductive reasoning
> occurs when an argument rests on some hidden assumption that, if not hidden,
would make it clear that there is insufficient evidence for the conclusion

4.1. Complex Question

 An informal fallacy in which a question is asked in such a way as to
presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in the question
 An informal fallacy that occurs when a single question that is really two or
more questions is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions.
> also called as the “loaded question”
> nothing more than a trick to induce another to assent the trick
Ex:
a. Mr. Accused, did anyone help you kill your husband?
b. Have you stopped taking drugs?
c. What did you do with the knife after stabbing him with it?

4.2. Non Cause Pro Causa (False Cause)

 A fallacy in which something that is not really the cause is treated as a cause
 An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends
on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist and appeal
to the people.
> the mistake in assuming that A caused B simply because A preceded B
Ex:
a. Prayer works. Whenever there’s a storm, I pray that our house would be
spared, and not
once had we been hit.
b. The moon was full on Thursday. I overslept on Friday morning. Therefore, the
full moon
caused me to oversleep.
c. Efren Bata Reyes lost the tournament because he took a bath prior to the final
game.

4.3. Petitio Precipii (Begging the Question)

Maris|12
 Request for the Source
The informal fallacy of begging the question; an argument in which the
conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.
 An informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer creates the illusion that
inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion  – by
leaving out a key premise by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by
reasoning in a circle.
> occurs when one assumes the truth of what he seeks to prove in the very effort
to prove it
> committed when the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises
provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a key premise,
restarting a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or reasoning in circle.
Ex:
a. The Bible affirms that it is inerrant. Whatever it says is true. Therefore, the Bible
is inerrant.
b. I have a right to say what I want, therefore you have no right to silence me.

4.4. Ignorantio Elenchi (Missing the Point; Irrelevant Conclusion)

 A fallacy in which the premises support different conclusion from the one that
is proposed.
 An informal fallacy committed when one refutes, not the thesis one’s
interlocutor is advancing, but some different thesis that one mistakenly
imputes to him or her.
- occurs when the premise of an argument entails one particular conclusion but
a completely different conclusion is actually drawn
> often arises when a particular objective is advocated but only a generalized
support is offered that could support an alternative approach
> the arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his premises that results to a
conclusion that entirely misses the point of the issue
Ex:
a. Cheating during examinations is becoming very rampant. Therefore,
examinations must be
abolished so that students will not anymore engage in cheating.
b. My grandmother wants to retire in the province where real property taxes are
low. She is
thinking of Batangas, but real property taxes are quite high there. Therefore,
she should not
retire in Batangas but in Cavite.

4.5. Accident (Sweeping Generalization)

 An informal fallacy committed when a generalization is applied to individual
cases that it does not properly govern.
 An informal fallacy that occurs when a general rule is wrongly applied to a
specific case in the conclusion.
> the mistake often lies in failing to recognize that there may be exceptions to a
general rule
> a result of careless or deliberately deceptive use of generalizations
Ex:
a. Jogging is good for the health. Therefore, a person with heart disease could
improve his health by jogging.

Maris|13
b. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Therefore, my client cannot be
held liable for what she said.
c. Sixty men can do a job sixty times as quickly as one man. One man can dig a
post-hole in sixty seconds. Therefore, sixty men can dig a hole in one second.
d. Ilocanos are thrifty. He is an Ilocano. Therefore, he is thrifty.

4.6. Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization)

 An informal fallacy committed when one moves carelessly or too quickly from
individual cases to a generalization
 An informal fallacy that occurs when a general conclusion is drawn from
atypical specific cases.
> opposite of fallacy of accident; a mistaken use of inductive reasoning
> committed when one establishes a broad principle or general rule based on
specific factual observations
> occurs when one argues that what is true of a few members of a class must also
be true of all the members of that class
Ex:
a. Babae kasi kaya nabunggo.
b. The recent bar topnotcher is a Bedan graduate. Therefore, all Bedan graduates
will top the bar exam.
c. This infant milk is found to be best for babies. Therefore, the said milk is best for
everybody, including adults.
d. Two of my friends are Ilocanos and they are both thrifty. Therefore, all Ilocanos
are thrifty.

4.7. False Dilemma

> also called as “false dichotomy”
> occurs when an argument is built upon the assumption that there are only two
choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several
> The argument is actually valid, but since the disjunctive premise is false or
probably false, the argument is typically unsound.
Ex:
a. Either a Creator brought the universe into existence or it came out of nothing.
Nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, a Creator brought the universe into
existence.
b. Either you are a fan of Aldub or Pastillas Girl. You like the Adlub page.
Therefore, you are an Aldub fan.
c. Japan will support either China or the Philippines in the territorial disputes. The
Prime Minister of Japan had a meeting with the Philippine President. Therefore,
Japan will support the Philippines in the dispute.

5. Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Any fallacy caused by a shift in or confusion of meaning within an argument
 A group of informal fallacies that occur because of an ambiguity in the
premises or conclusion.
> committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in meaning
of an ambiguous word or phrase, or on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous
statement
> Appear to support their conclusions only due to the imprecise use of language.
Once terms are clarified, fallacies of ambiguity are exposed.

Maris|14
 5.1 Equivocation
 A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used in
different parts of an argument
 An informal fallacy that occurs because some word or group of words are
used either to implicitly or explicitly in two different senses.
> committed when the same word or phrase is used in different senses within one
line argument
> Equivocation alone is not fallacious; It is only when an equivocal word or phrase
makes an unsound argument appear sound.
Ex:
a. All banks are beside rivers. Therefore, the bank where I deposit my money is
beside a river.
b. Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, Jesus is the
Bible.
c. Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection. I say that death is the end of life.
Hence, death is the perfection of life.

5.2. Amphiboly
 A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can be
interpreted in more than one way; the argument contains a premise based
upon one interpretation, while the conclusion relies on a different
interpretation.
 An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends
on the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some
structural defect.
> amphiboly means “indeterminate;” it’s an ambiguity that results from ambiguous
grammar
> An amphibologous statement may be true in one interpretation and false in
another. This error is due to a lack of verbal clarity because of a grammatical
error.
Ex:
a. The anthropologists went to a remote area and took photographs of some
native women, but they were not developed.
b. A reckless motorist struck and injured a student who was jogging through
campus in his pick-up truck. Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pick-up truck.
c. To be repaired: the rocking chair of an old lady with two broken legs.

5.3. Accent
 An informal fallacy committed when a term or phrase has a meaning in the
conclusion of an argument different from its meaning in one of the premises;
the difference arising chiefly from the change in emphasis given to the words
used.
 A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey two different meanings within an
argument and the difference is based on changes in emphasis given to words
within the phrase.
> This kind of fallacy depends on where the stress is placed on a word or
sentence.
Ex:
a. I resent that letter.
b. Jorge turned in his assignment on time today. Therefore, Jorge usually turns in
his assignments late.

Maris|15
 5.4. Composition
 An informal fallacy in which an argument erroneously assigns attribute to a
whole (or a collection) based on the fact that parts of that whole (or member
of that collection) have those attributes.
 A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the
parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole
 An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends
on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto
the whole.
> an inductive error; argues that what is true to parts of a the whole is true to the
whole itself
Ex:
a. Every course I took in college was well-organized. Therefore, my college
education was well-organized.
b. The prosecution offered nothing but circumstantial pieces of evidence.
Therefore, my client’s guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. (the
totality of the pieces of evidence may have proven guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
c. The individual parts of a large tractor are lightweight. Therefore, the entire
machine is lightweight.

5.5. Division
 A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a whole
to the attributes of the parts of the whole
 An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends
on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or class) onto its
parts (or members)
> a deductive error; argues that what is true of the whole must be true of individual
parts
Ex:
a. The Archdiocese of Borongan is almost 100 years old. Fr. Neil is a priest of the
 Archdiocese of Borongan. Therefore, Fr. Neil is almost 100 years old.
b. ABC and Associates is an immoral law firm that engages in unethical practices.
 Atty. Juan is employed at ABC and Associates. Therefore, Atty. Juan is immoral.
c. Pedro is an employee of an influential company. Therefore, Pedro is influential.

6. Definition
 An expression in which one word or set of symbols (the definiens) is provided,
which is claimed to have the same meaning as the definiendum, the word or
symbol defined.
 A group of words that assigns a meaning to a word or group of words
DEFINIENS  –  in any definition, a symbol or group of symbols that is set to
have the same meaning as the definiendum.
- In any definition, the word or group of words that do the defining
- DEFINIENDUM – in a definition, the word or symbol is defined
- in a definition, the word or group of words that are proposed to be defined.

6.1. Stipulative Definition

Maris|16
  A definition in which a new symbol is introduced to which some meaning is
arbitrarily assigned, as opposed to a lexical definition, a stipulative definition
cannot be correct or incorrect.
 A definition that assigns a meaning to a word for the first time.
> If accepted, a stipulative definition creates a usage that had never existed
previously.
Ex:
a. Let us define MBA as married but available.
b. I suggest using apatheist to refer to people who are apathetic to the question of
the existence of any gods.

6.2. Lexical (Real) Definition

 A definition that reports a meaning the definiendum (the term to be explained)
already has and thus a definition that can usually be judged correct or
incorrect.
 A definition intended to report the way a word is actually used in a language.
> usually found in a dictionary; the goal is to inform someone else of the accepted
meaning of the term
Ex:
a. Prime numbers refer to any integer divisible only by 1 and itself.
b. Religion is defined as the belief in a superhuman controlling power.

6.3. Precising Definition

 A definition devised to eliminate vagueness by delineating a concept more
sharply
 A definition intended to reduce the vagueness of a word
> Though there is an element of stipulation, it is not a pure stipulative definition. It
must remain to a connected established usage; one is not free to assign whatever
meaning. But it incorporates additional attributes that narrows the term’s scope.
Ex:
a. Bus companies are mandated to give discounts to old people. An old person is
any person of age 65 or above.
b. If by language, we refer to any system of communication, then birds and other
animals do make use of language.

6.4. Theoretical Definition

 A definition that encapsulates an understanding of the theory in which that
term is a key element
 A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that
gives a certain characterization to the entities that the term denotes.
> Theoretical definitions are special cases of stipulative or précising definition,
distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of a term within the context of a
broader intellectual framework.
Ex:
a. Cancer is an abnormal growth of cells which tend to proliferate in an
uncontrolled way and, in some cases, to metastasize.
b. Love, according to Platonism, is a non-sexual relationship between
heterosexual friends.
c. Heat means the energy associated with the random motion of the molecules of
a substance.

Maris|17
 6.5. Persuasive Definition
 A definition formulated and used to resolve a dispute influencing attitudes or
stirring emotions, often relying upon the use of emotive language.
 A definition intended to engender a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward
what is denoted by the definiendum.
> an attempt to attach emotive meaning to the use of a term
> can be judged true or false, but what matters is its effectiveness
Ex:
a. Taxation is the procedure of raising government revenues to preserve and
sustain public needs.
b. Taxation is the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people and infringe
upon their private property.
c. Abortion is the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings.

Techniques for Defining Terms

A. Denotative Definition (Extension)
- A definition that identifies the extension of a term, by (for example) listing the
members of the class of objects to which the term refers; the members of that
class are thus denoted.
- A class definition that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members
of the class that the term denotes.

1. Definition by examples

2. Ostensive (Demonstrative) Definition

- A kind of denotative definition in which the objects denoted by the term being
defined are referred to by means of pointing, or with some other gesture;
sometimes called a demonstrative definition.
- A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by pointing to members of the
class that the word denotes.

3. Quasi-Ostensive Definition
- A variety of denotative definition that relies upon gesture, in conjunction with
a descriptive phrase.

4. Subjective Intension
- The set of all attributes that the speaker believes to be possessed by objects
denoted by a given term.

5. Objective Intension
- The total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the extension of a term.

6. Conventional Intension
- The commonly accepted intension of a term; the criteria generally agreed
upon for deciding, with respect to any object, whether it is part of the extension
of that term.

B. Intentional Definition

Maris|18
 - A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or
attributes that the word connotes.

Synonymous Definition
- A kind of connotative def in which a word, phrase or symbol is defined in
terms of another word, phrase or symbol hat has the same meaning and is
already understood.

Operational Definition
- A kind of connotative def that states that the term to be defined is correctly
applied to a given case if and only if the performance of the specified
operations in that case yields a specified result.

Definition by Genus and Difference

- A type of connotative definition of which a term that first identifies the larger
class (genus) of which the definiendum is a species or subclass, and then
identifies the attribute (difference) that distinguishes the members of that
species from members of all other species in that genus.
> The advantage of this method is that it not only conveys the meaning of the
word but also gives an analysis of the characteristics of the phenomenon itself.

6.6. Denotation (Extension) and Connotation (Intension)

Ex:
-Denotation
a. An ocean is a body of water such as the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Antarctic, and
 Arctic bodies of water.
b. A ship may be a cargo ship, passenger ship, battle ship, or sailing ship.
c. Inventors, like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and the Wright
brothers, create new objects.

-Connotation
a. A dog is a member of the canine family that has four legs and the ability to bark.
b. A ship is a vehicle for conveyance of water.
c. An inventor is a clever, intuitive, creative, and imaginative person.

6.7. Definition by Genus and Difference

Ex:
a. A chair is a piece of furniture designed to be sat upon by one person at a time.
b. Humans are rational animals.
c. Daughter means a female offspring.

Maris|19