ARGUING LOGICALLY

Reasoning and Fallacies

 Allactors are handsome. Jaime Lannister is
handsome. Therefore, Jaime Lannister is an
actor.
 Allwolves are mammals, all mammals have
kidneys; therefore all wolves have kidneys.
 Allfarmers like burgers. Daenerys likes
chicken wings. Therefore, Daenerys is not a
farmer.
 Allbirds have feathers and all crows are
birds. Therefore, crows have feathers.
 Alldragons can fly. IronMan can fly.
Therefore, IronMan is a dragon.
Have you ever tried
convincing someone using
facts, rules or definitions?
Logic
 Logic is the study of arguments.
 Itis used to analyze an argument or a piece
of reasoning, and work out whether it is
correct or not.
Logical Argument or Reasoning
 In logical argument, conclusions are drawn
from evidence or principles.
 An argument is a reason or set of reasons
given with the aim of persuading others
that an action or idea is right or wrong.
FORMS OF
LOGICAL REASONING
Forms of Logical Reasoning

1.Rule-based reasoning. This relies on

the use of syllogisms, or arguments
based on formal logic. A syllogism
consists of a major premise, a minor
premise, and a conclusion.
Forms of Logical Reasoning
2.Analogical reasoning. This reasoning compares
(or contrasts) the facts of a yet-to-be-decided
case with the facts of a previously decided case
and argues that the current case should be
decided in a manner similar to (or different from)
the previous case. This type of reasoning often
involves the use of prior judicial decisions
(jurisprudence).
Forms of Logical Reasoning
3.Public policy reasoning. One may argue
for a particular interpretation of a legal
rule because it would be the best outcome
for society at large, not just the parties to
the dispute.
Forms of Logical Reasoning
4.Arguments from principle draw on
common social values, such as morality,
justice, fairness, equality, democracy, or
personal freedom. One may argue for an
interpretation of the law so as not to
conflict with social custom.
Forms of Logical Reasoning
5. According to Dr. James C. Raymond,
lawyers can use the LOPP/FLOPP
Analysis in making an argument. The
writer states the Losing Party’s Position
and Flaws of the Losing Party’s Position.
In this way, the losing party will know
why he lost.
Drafting an Order
 In making a legal argument to draft
Orders, we use rule-based reasoning
through deductive reasoning.
 Deductive reasoning in legal argument
makes use of two given premises to
derive a conclusion. This three-part
structure is known as syllogism.
Two Kinds of Logical Reasoning
A. Inductive Reasoning B. Deductive Reasoning

Multiple premises, all Deductive

believed to be true, reasoning moves from
are viewed as generalities to specific
supplying some conclusions. The
evidence to obtain a conclusions are drawn
specific conclusion. from a set of two
premises.
Inductive Reasoning
 Labor Inspector Ranjan is handsome. Labor
Inspector Rodel is handsome. Labor Inspector is
also handsome. Gledmore is a Labor Inspector.
Therefore, Gledmore is handsome.
 Every time you eat peanuts, you start to cough.
You are allergic to peanuts.
 Every chicken we've seen has been brown. All
chickens in this area must be brown.
Deductive Reasoning
 IfA = B and B = 200, then A = 200.
 Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 Amboy goes wherever ARD Jimmit goes, and ARD
Jimmit went to the museum. Therefore, Amboy
also went to the museum.
Syllogism
 Syllogismis a form of reasoning in which a
conclusion is drawn from two given
premises, each of which shares a term
with the conclusion, and shares a common
or middle term not present in the
conclusion. Syllogism consists of a major
premise, a minor premise and a
conclusion.
 Syllogism
A. Major Premise B. Minor Premise C. Conclusion

Statement of Statement of Connects the

the rule or the the findings of minor premise
law. facts. with the major
premise such
that it tells us
how the rule
applies to the
facts.
Let us prove that Gled Moore is
Handsome.
Major Premise: All Igorots are tall,
dark and handsome.

Minor Premise: Gled Moore is an

Igorot.

Conclusion: Therefore, Gled

Moore is tall, dark and handsome.
Major Premise: The employees whose primary duty
consists of the management of the establishment in
which they are employed or of a department or
subdivision thereof are managerial employees.

Minor Premise: Jay Dee is an employee of Mc

Dollibee who is tasked to direct the operations and
management of the restaurant.

Conclusion: Therefore, Jay Dee is a managerial

employee.
How to make your discussions?
A. Proposition B. Premises C. Conclusion

A statement or The premises are The judgment or

assertion that the rule, an idea decision reached
expresses a or theory(major using logical
judgment or premise, fact or arguments.
opinion. It is the evidence (minor
equivalent of a premise) on which
hypothesis. the proposition is
based.
How to make findings of facts?
 There is no problem if the opposing parties
have the same version of facts. You can
assume that said version is the truth.
 If the parties have different version of
facts, we have to determine which of the
two versions is true using the LOPP/FLOPP
Analysis.
LOPP/FLOPP Analysis
 In
applying this analysis, it is presumed
that the writer has already identified
which side he will uphold, thus, the losing
party and his allegations are identified. He
will then state the LOPP which is the
contention or allegation of the Losing
Party’s Position and states the FLOPP or
the reason why the party has lost
LOPP/FLOPP Analysis
LOPP: The employer alleged that there were no
deductions for uniform on the salaries of the employees.

FLOPP: The payrolls of the employees contain a column

for deductions for uniforms and the amounts stated
therein are deducted to the salaries of the employees.

Conclusion: Therefore, the contention of the employer

that there were no deductions for uniform on the salaries
of the employees has no merit.
LOPP/FLOPP Analysis
LOPP: Respondent alleges that he was not able to attend
the mandatory conference on February 1, 2019 because
he did not receive the Notice of Mandatory Conference.

FLOPP: Records reveal that Respondent received the

Notice of Mandatory Conference on January 25, 2018 as
proven by the return receipt.

Conclusion: Therefore, the contention of Respondent that

he did not receive the notice has no merit.
Fallacy
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. A fallacious
argument is one that may appear correct, but
on examination proves not to be so.

Even if the premises and conclusion are all

correct, an argument may still be fallacious if
the reasoning used to reach that conclusion is
not logically valid. A fallacious argument is an
unsound argument.
Argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy
or Appeal to inappropriate authority.
 Thefallacy occurs when the reason for assenting to a
statement is based on following the recommendation
or advice of an improper authority.
Example:
 The finding of this Office on the forgery of the
signature of the employees is based on the testimony
of the Labor Inspector who examined their signature
specimens and concluded that the alleged signatures
of the employees in their payroll are not theirs.
Non sequitor fallacy or Disconnected
premises/Logical fallacy.
 Thefallacy occurs when the conclusion does not follow
from the premises.
Example:
 Fortermination to be considered valid, it must be for
just or authorized cause/s and after complying with
the twin-notice rule. John Doe was illegally
terminated by his employer. John Doe was not validly
terminated.
Ignoratio elenchi fallacy/Fallacy of proving
irrelevant conclusion/”Straw-Man”
argument.
 This
fallacy occurs when the premises “miss the point”
and fail to substantiate the conclusion, instead, supporting
some other conclusion.
Example:
 Tobe considered project-based, the employee’s
employment must have been fixed for a specific project
or undertaking, the of which has been determined at the
time of his engagement. John was not informed of the
duration of his engagement. Thus, John is a regular
employee.
Non causa pro causa fallacy (“no
cause for a cause”).
 Thisis a causal fallacy which arises when one treats
something as a cause that is not, or should not be assumed
to be, a cause.
Example:
 The termination of the faculty-union members of St.
Patrick University is because of the implementation of the
school’s retrenchment program to address the effects of
the K to 12 Program of the government. John Doe, a
faculty of St. Patrick, was terminated. Thus, his
termination is due to the retrenchment program of the
school.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
("after this, therefore because of this").
 This is a causal fallacy where something is assumed to be
the cause because it precedes the occurrence of a
consequence.
Example:
 In 2017, Mc Dollibee terminated Jay Dee because of theft.
In 2018, Mc Dollibee terminated Jane Doe because of
theft. In 2019, Mc Dollibee terminated Jay Sy. Therefore,
the termination of Jay Sy is also because of theft.
Overzealous application of a general
rule/Fallacy of Accident
 Thisfallacy occurs when we apply a generalization to an
individual case that it does not necessarily govern. The
mistake often lies in failing to recognize that there may be
exceptions to a general rule.
Example:
 ThePhilippine Constitution guarantees the rights of the
workers to self-organization. Thus, the employees of
Nostradamus Hospital have the right to organize a drug
syndicate in their workplace.
Hasty Generalization.

 This
fallacy occurs when we move too quickly to
establish a broad principle or general rule based on
specific factual observations.
Example:
 Rowe Dell is a regular employee of Mc Dollibee
because he wears a uniform bearing a logo of Mc
Dollibee.
Fallacy of Composition.

 Thisarises when one infers that something is

true of the whole from the fact that it is true of
some part of the whole.
Example:
 Two security guards of Mc Dollibee are not
entitled to service incentive leave. Therefore,
all security guards of Mc Dollibee are not
entitled to service incentive leave.
Fallacy of Division.

 Thisoccurs when one infers that something is

true of one or more of the parts from the fact
that it is true of the whole. This is the opposite
of Fallacy of Composition.
Example:
 McDollibee is not paying its employees
overtime pay. Jane Doe is an employee of Mc
Dollibee. Therefore, Mc Dollibee is not paying
Jane Doe her overtime pays.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam/Argument
from ignorance.

 Thisoccurs when something is assumed to be

true because it has not yet been proven to
be false or that something is false because it
has not yet been proven to be true.
Example:
 GledMoore alleged that he renders overtime
work. Mc Dollibee failed to rebut the allegations
of Gled Moore, thus, Gled Moore indeed
rendered overtime work.
Argumentum ad hominem/Attack
against the person.
 Thisfallacy occurs when the thrust of an
argument is directed, not at a conclusion, but
at the person who asserts or defends it.
Example:
 GledMoore alleged that he renders overtime
work. However, Gled Moore was previously
convicted several times of perjury. Therefore,
Gled Moore is lying.