THE STUDY OF LOGIC

INTRODUCTION: BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS & DIAGRAMMING TECHNIQUE Prepared by: Mr. Napoleon Allan R. Prieto For Legal Technique and Logic, under Atty. Leah de Guzman

OUTLINE
Objectives Definition of Terms Seatwork

OBJECTIVES
Definition of terms Recognize parts of an argument:

Premises and Conclusion

Understand the difference between deductive and inductive arguments Examine the relations between true propositions and the validity of deductive arguments Diagram arguments

WHAT IS LOGIC?

Logic

From Greek word LOGOS study, reason or discourse It is SCIENCE and ART of CORRECT REASONING

SCIENCE systematized body of truths and principles governing correct thinking

ART teaches how to make a good argument

CORRECT THINKING when it conforms to a pattern or to rules, involving analysis, definition, classification, comparison and contrasts;

WHAT LOGIC IS

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning NOT the science of reasoning
NOT the science of the laws of thought Students of logic study methods for testing the correctness of reasoning of different kinds; and detecting errors, fallacies or mistakes in reasoning

A STUDENT OF LOGIC ASKS THE FOLLOWING:

Does the conclusion reached follow from the premises used or assumed?
Do the premises provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion drawn? NOTE:
If the premises do provide adequate grounds for accepting the conclusion, if asserting the premises to be true does warrant asserting the conclusion also to be true, then the reasoning is correct. Otherwise it is incorrect.

APPEAL TO EMOTION VS LOGICAL ARGUMENT

The appeal to emotion sometimes is more persuasive than logical argument, and in some contexts it may be more appropriate as well. But where judgments that must be relied upon are to be made, it is correct reasoning that will in the long run prove to be the most solid foundation Therefore, to efficiently distinguish correct thinking and use it (for our legal career), it is imperative that we study the methods and techniques of logic.

BRANCHES OF LOGIC

1. FORMAL LOGIC

Concerned with the aspect of form which has something to do with the correctness or sequence or the following of rules Ex. All men are mortal. But Pedro is a man. Therefore, Pedro is mortal.

2. MATERIAL LOGIC

Concerned with the aspect of subject matter or content of truth of the argument

Ex. A ruler is 12-inch long. President GMA is a ruler. Therefore, President GMA is 12-inch long.

ESSENTIAL OPERATIONS OF THE INTELLECT

Mental Operations Simple apprehension Products Concept The representation of an object by the intellect through which man understands or comprehends a thing Examples As to intention e.g. understanding what the thing is according to what it is in reality Ex. A dog is an animal. As to abstraction that which cannot be perceived by the senses Ex. Beauty in a woman Ex. Every monkey is an animal. No Monkey is a human. Some monkeys are brown. Some monkeys are not brown. Arguments

Judgment

Proposition A special type of sentence, enunciation of truth or falsity Agreement or disagreemnt

Reasoning

WHAT ARE PROPOSITIONS?

Propositions are the building blocks of every argument

It is something that may be asserted or denied, which can be true or false It is an essential feature of propositions that they are either true or false thus every proposition is either true or false

Examples
Cabanatuan City is already qualified to be a highly urbanized city. Cabanatuan City is not yet ready to be a highly urbanized city.

PROPOSITIONS

The same proposition can be used, in different contexts, to make very different statements.
Ex. The president of the Philippines is a child of a former president of the Philippines. (True under the Presidency of PNOY & GMA, False under FVR)

Simple Propositions

Our previous examples are all simple propositions, asserting only one proposition per sentence.

COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS

They are those containing other propositions within themselves

Example

The British were at the gates of Hamburg and Bremen and threatening to cut off Germany from occupied Denmark.

(Compound propositions which do not assert the truth of their components)

Alternative (or disjunctive) propositions: neither of the two components is asserted, only the compound either-or

Example Circuit Courts are useful, or they are not useful.

Hypothetical (or conditional) propositions: only the if-then proposition is asserted by the hypothetical or conditional statement is asserted

Propositions

are the building blocks with which arguments are made

INFERENCE AND ARGUMENTS

The term inference refers to the process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of one or more other propositions accepted as the starting point of the process.
An argument is any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.

For an argument to be present, it must have a structure meaning there must be a premise and conclusion

THE PREMISE AND THE CONCLUSION

The conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the argument, and these other propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed) as providing support or reasons for accepting the conclusion, are the premises of that argument. The simplest kind of argument consists of just one premise and a conclusion that is claimed to follow from it, or to be implied by it.

POSITION OF THE CONCLUSION

Premise and conclusion, in that order, may each be stated in a separate sentence.
Example The Philippines is a net energy importer. Therefore, it is a mathematical certainty that our country as a whole is better off with lower prices for oil.

It may precede the statement of the single premise.

Example

The FDA should stop all cigarette sales immediately. After all, cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death.

ARGUMENTS: NOTES TO REMEMBER

Every argument, whether simple or complex, consists of a group of propositions of which one is the conclusion and the others are the premises offered in its support
It should be emphasized that while every argument is a structured cluster of propositions, not every structured cluster of propositions is an argument.

IS THERE AN ARGUMENT HERE?

The passage of the Responsible Parenthood Bill signals not

only a new chapter in our agenda of inclusive growth; it also begins a process of healing for the wounds that may have been opened by an often feisty democracy. We are confident that positive, meaningful engagement between the different branches of government will continue.

HOW ABOUT HERE?

Considering that banks can only act through their officers

and employees, the fiduciary obligation laid down for these institutions necessarily extends to their employees. Thus, banks must ensure that their employees observe the same high level of integrity and performance for it is only through this that banks may meet and comply with their own fiduciary duty. It has been repeatedly held that a banks liability as an obligor is not merely vicarious, but primary since they are expected to observe an equally high degree of diligence, not only in the selection, but also in the supervision of its employees. Thus, even if it is their employees who are negligent, the banks responsibility to its client remains paramount making its liability to the same to be a direct one.

SEATWORK #1

RECOGNIZING CONCLUSIONS AND PREMISES

It is essential for the complaint to show on its face what are claimed to be

the fraudulent corporate acts if the complainant wishes to invoke the courts special commercial jurisdiction. This is because fraud in intracorporate controversies must be based on devises and schemes employed by, or any act of, the board of directors, business associates, officers or partners, amounting to fraud or misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, or members of any corporation, partnership, or association, as stated under Rule 1, Section 1 (a)(1) of the Interim Rules. The act of fraud or misrepresentation complained of becomes a criterion in determining whether the complaint on its face has merits, or within the jurisdiction of special commercial court, or merely a nuisance suit.

RECOGNIZING CONCLUSIONS AND PREMISES

Petitioners were illegally dismissed as they were not afforded

substantive and procedural due process. To justify the dismissal of an employee on the ground of serious misconduct, the employer must first establish that the employee is guilty of improper conduct, that the employee violated an existing and valid company rule or regulation, or that the employee is guilty of a wrongdoing. In the instant case, Biomedica failed to even present a copy of the rules and to prove that petitioners were made aware of such regulations.

CONCLUSION INDICATORS
Therefore Hence Thus So Accordingly In consequence Proves that As a result For this reason It follows that In conclusion

PREMISE INDICATORS
Since Because For As Follows from As shown by As indicated by The reason is that In view of the fact that

RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations

require a trial-type proceeding. It is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. More often, this opportunity is conferred through written pleadings that the parties submit to present their charges and defenses. But as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his or her interests in due course, said party is not denied due process. Since petitioner was given the opportunity to defend himself from the charges against him, as in fact he submitted a CounterAffidavit with the PAGC, though he failed to comply with the order for the submission of position paper, he cannot complain of denial of due process.

ARGUMENTS BY DEDUCTION

A deductive argument involves the claim that its premises provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion
If claim is warranted, the reasoning in deductive argument is correct and we call that argument to be VALID. If the claim cannot be sustained, the reasoning of a deductive argument is incorrect and we call the argument INVALID.
Example If Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

ARGUMENTS BY INDUCTION

On the other hand, in inductive argument, the premises are not claimed to give conclusive grounds but only to provide some support for the conclusion. It may be evaluated as being better or worse, stronger or weaker, according to the degree of support given to their conclusions. The higher the degree of probability that its premises confer on its conclusion, the greater the merit.

Example:

Socrates is human and mortal. Plato is human and mortal. Einstein is human and mortal. It is therefore probably true that all humans are mortal.

DISTINCTION: DEDUCTION VS. INDUCTION

Rests essentially upon the strength of the claims made by arguments of the two types about the relations between their premises and their conclusions.
A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute necessity, not being a matter of degree and not depending in any way on whatever else may be the case An inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability, this probability being a matter of degree and dependent upon what else may be the case.

VALIDITY AND TRUTH

Truth and falsity apply to statements about the world.

Validity and invalidity apply to arguments in which inferences are drawn from some propositions to other propositions.

TAKE NOTE:

An argument may be valid while one or more of its premises is not true.

PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE RELATIONS

BETWEEN TRUTH AND VALIDITY

I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions true premises and a true conclusion:

All mammals have lungs. All whales are mammals. Therefore, all whales have lungs.

II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions:

All four-legged creatures have wings. All spiders have four legs. Therefore all spiders have wings.

III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions all their premises are true and their conclusions are true as well.

If I owned all the gold in the Philippines, then I would be wealthy. I do not own all the gold in the Philippines. Therefore I am not wealthy.

PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE RELATIONS

BETWEEN TRUTH AND VALIDITY

IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion.

If Mr. Marcos owned all the gold in the Philippines, then Mr. Marcos would be wealthy. Mr. Marcos does not own all the gold in the Philippines. Therefore Mr. Marcos is not wealthy.

V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion.

All fishes are mammals. All whales are fishes. Therefore all whales are mammals.

VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion

All mammals have wings. All whales have wings. Therefore all whales are mammals.

PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE RELATIONS

BETWEEN TRUTH AND VALIDITY

VII. Some invalid arguments contain all false propositions false premises and a false conclusion.

All mammals have wings. All whales have wings. Therefore all mammals are whales.

These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with FALSE CONCLUSIONS, as well as invalid arguments with TRUE CONCLUSIONS.

Hence, it is clear that the truth or falsity of an arguments conclusion does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of an argument.
Moreover, the fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion.

MATRIX OF ARGUMENTS
INVALID ARGUMENTS TRUE CONCLUSION TRUE PREMISES FALSE PREMISES Example III Example IV FALSE CONCLUSION Example IV Example VII

VALID ARGUMENTS TRUE CONCLUSION TRUE PREMISES FALSE PREMISES Example I Example V Example II FALSE CONCLUSION

PART II: Diagramming Arguments

WHY USE DIAGRAM IN ANALYZING ARGUMENTS

Diagramming facilitates understanding of an arguments structure. Diagramming helps to see points of attack in criticizing an argument.

HOW DO WE DO IT?
Number the constituent propositions in the order of their occurrence in the passage, enclosed in circles, then let the numbers appear in the diagrams, rather than the full sentences in which they are stated. Put brackets around each proposition, with its circled number either above it or directly in front of it. Place the conclusion below its premise, using the circled numbers. And use an arrow pointing at the conclusion.

EXAMPLE
1

[There must be simple substances,] 2 [because there are composites. ]

SEATWORK #2: Analyze the passages in section A. of Seatwork #1 using the diagramming technique

Merry Christmas!!!