1.

What is LOGIC
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of
validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the
formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic
<modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics;
especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of
knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty
(2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as
inevitable or predictable
Logic (from the Greek "logos", which has a variety of meanings
including word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason or
principle) is the study of reasoning, or the study of the
principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.
It attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning.
Aristotle defined logic as "new and necessary reasoning",
"new" because it allows us to learn what we do not know, and
"necessary" because its conclusions are inescapable. It asks
questions like "What is correct reasoning?", "What distinguishes
a good argument from a bad one?", "How can we detect a fallacy
in reasoning?"
Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements
and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of
inference and through the study of arguments in natural
language. It deals only with propositions (declarative
sentences, used to make an assertion, as opposed to questions,
commands or sentences expressing wishes) that are capable of
being true and false. It is not concerned with the
psychological processes connected with thought, or with
emotions, images and the like. It covers core topics such as the
study of fallacies and paradoxes, as well as specialized
analysis of reasoning using probability and arguments involving
causality and argumentation theory.
2. What is the significance of LOGIC in law and legal
practice?
Thereisgoodreasontoremainskepticalofoverlyrationalisticaccountsoflaw
andjudicialpractice.Theweaveofhistoricaldoctrine,legalprinciple,andfactual
nuancesthatgoesintoeachjudicialdecisionisfartoointricatetopermitcritical
appraisalunderanysingleevaluativemethod,includingtheprinciplesoflogic.So
we are rightfully apprehensive when we recollect the formalistic visions of
nineteenthcenturyjuristsvisionswhichfoundtheessenceofadjudicationin
thelogicalderivationofconclusionsnecessarilyrequiredbypredeterminedlegal
principles.

Yet it is somewhere between strict formalistic jurisprudence and an outright

disregardforlogicandargumentativeformwherethelawandjudicialpractice
reallyfindrepose.ThoughallthatistypicallyrepeatedofJusticeHolmesviewis
the pithy remark quoted above, his jurisprudential writings together with his
judicialopinionsshowclearlythatheneverintendedtosuggestthatlogicisnota
centralaspectoflaworjudicialdecisionmaking.He,aswellasthelegalrealists
andothercriticsoflegalformalism,wellrecognizedthatevaluatingandcreating
argumentslieattheheartofthecraftsoflawyeringandjudging.
Itisthusworthwhileforpractitionersandstudentsofthelawaliketopossess
anunderstandingofthebasicprinciplesoflogicthatareusedregularlyin
legalreasoningandjudicialdecisionmaking.Thisunderstandingrequires,in
importantpart,skillinnavigatingtheprocessesofinductivereasoningthe
methodsofanalo gyandinductivegeneralizationbywhichinferences
aredrawnonthebasisofpastexperienceandempiricalobservation.The
common law method of case law development, as well as the general
prescriptoftenreferredtoastheRuleofLawthatlikecasesbedecided
alikearegroundedlogicallyininductivereasoning.
Equallyimportantisasecondbasiccategoryofargumentationdeductivelogic,
especiallythedeductiveargumentformsknownassyllogisms.Thesearethe
classic forms of deductive argument consisting of a major premise, a minor
premise,andaconclusion.Itwasthisaspectoflogicthatacenturyagostirred
suchvirulentoppositiontoformalism.Anditisthisaspectoflogicwhichwasso
severelydownplayedthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.Yetevenarudimentary
understandingofdeductivelogicgiveslawyers,judges,andstudentsofthelawa
valuabletoolfordeterminingwhetheranargumentinalegalopinionorbriefis
validorfallacious.
In essence, the domain of the law and, within that domain, perhaps most
especially the practice of judicial decision making are exercises in practical
reasoning.Law,tobesure,involvesmorethanlogic.Yetthemyriadoffactors
thatcontributetogoodlawyeringandfairjudgingsuggestthatthelifeofthe
law,whilenotlogicalone,isamanifoldofactivitiesthatalluseanddepend
uponreasoninspecializedways.Theprecisionofdetailrequiredinthedraftingof
contracts,wills,trusts,andotherlegaldocumentsisarationalprecision;thecare
in planning and strategizing demanded of trial attorneys in deciding how to
presenttheircasesisarationalcare;theskillinwrittenandoralargumentation
required for appellate practice is, quite obviously, a rational skill; the talent
expectedofadministrativelawjudgesincraftingcoherentfindingsoffactand
conclusionsoflawisarationaltalent;andtheabilityoftrialandappellatecourt
judgestoseparate,dispassionatelyandwithoutbias,thekernelofargumentfrom
the rhetorical and emotive chaff of adversarial presentation, so as to render
judgmentsthatarejustifiedunderthelaw,isarationalability.
Whileitistruethatmanyotherfactorsfromselfinteresttomoralvalues,from
psychologytoscienceenterintothedecisionmakingoflawyersandjudges,all
suchfactorsbeartheeverpresenttinctureofreasonandlogic.Trialattorneysmay

appeal to the psychology or sentiments of the jury, but only so far as they
reasonablyexpecttoinfluencethejurytodrawrationalinferencesintheirclients
favor.Selfinterestmaybethesoledrivingmotiveforeachpartyinthedraftingof
a contract, yet the recognition, grounded in reason, that insisting on onerous
provisions will likely undermine the entire contractual arrangement has the
tendency to hold everyones selfinterest in check. And while adjudicative
practicecallsforagooddealofvaluejudgmentinthechoice,interpretation,
and application of legal principles, such value judgments are not free of the
constraintsofreason.Asstatedbyoneappellatecourt,[E]verylegalanalysis
shouldbeginatthepointofreason,continuealongapathoflogicandarriveata
fundamentally fair result. (Sunrise Lumber v. Johnson, Appeal No. 165). To
criticize,reverse,oroverruleanadministrativeorjudicialdecisionasarbitrary,
capricious,unsupportedbylaw,orcontrarytoprecedentistosaynothing
more,butnothingless,thanthatthedecisionisdeficientinlogicandreason.
3. Argumentvs.Explanation
There are two kinds of rationale: argument and explanation.
Rational reconstruction depends critically on the ability to
distinguish one from the other. The distinction is this:
An argument is a rationale in which the reason functions as
evidence in support of the conclusion. Its purpose is to provide a
rational basis for believing the conclusion to be true.
An explanation is a rationale in which the conclusion represents
an accepted fact and the reason represents a cause of that
fact. Its purpose is to help us understand how or why that fact
occurs.
In the beginning the best way to remember the difference
between arguments and explanations is to think of them as
answering two different questions.
An argument answers the question: How do you know?
An explanation answers the question: Why is that so?
4. Argumentvs.UnsupportedOpinion

Argument Analysis
Understanding the structure of an argument
All propaganda is dangerous. Therefore, network news is
dangerous, because network news is propaganda.

All arguments have two main parts:

Premise

 Conclusion

What is a premise?
Any claim used to prove the truth of another claim in an
argument.
May be factual or opinion

What is a conclusion?
Any claim you are trying to prove in an argument
Must be an opinion
The author will sometimes use signal words to help the reader distinguish between the
premise and the conclusion

Premise Signal Words

Any word or phrase, that if you have an argument, tells you that what
follows may be some type of premise
Conclusion Signal Words
Any word or phrase, that if you have an argument, tells you that what
follows may be some type of conclusion

Memorize the signal words on your

handout!!!!!!!!!!
If you do not memorize them...
You will be very sorry!

______ sent me an autographed

photo. (premise) He/she wants my body.

(conclusion)
Harriet should divorce Harry because he will not

work, he hasnt bathed since 1988 and he is

seeing her grandmother.
Important Terms:
Final/Main Conclusion: The main point that the author is
trying to prove in an argument. It is never used to prove anything
else in the argument. What all the evidence is either directly or
indirectly proving. Rule: Can be introduced only by conclusion
signal words.

Unsupported Premise/Basic Premise

Any premise in an argument for which there is no evidence
offered. May be factual or may be an opinion. Rule:
Unsupported premises may be introduced only by premise signal
words.

Supported Premise/Subconclusion/Intermediate Conclusion

Any premise in an argument for which there is evidence given.
It is a premise and a conclusion at the same time. It is used to
prove another claim, and at the same time, a claim is being used
to prove it. Rule: May be introduced by premise or conclusion
signal words.

Sometimes, the author of an argument will offer

support for some of the premises he or she is
using in the argument. When support or
evidence is offered for a premise, that premise is
called a supported premise or subconclusion.
Example
Harriet should divorce Harry because he

refuses to work, as shown by the many job

offers that he has refused, hasnt bathed
since 1998, and is dating her grandmother.

When no evidence is offered to prove a premise,

that premise is called an unsupported or basic
premise.
Example
Harry will surely get an A+ in this class. He attends regularly
and has submitted every assignment on time. He has also
received As on all of his tests.

Your examples:
Harry will surely get an A+ in this class. he attends regularly.
he has also submitted every assignment. He has also received
As on all of his tests, as shown by the tests in his folder.

Another Example:
He got an A+, so he probably cheated.
Consequently, he should be suspended.

The next concept we need to discuss is the

difference between dependent and independent
premises. The best way to get at this difference
is to look at some examples.
Example One
All students who study hard will pass their
courses, and you are a student who is studying

hard. It follows that you will pass your

courses.

Now we must ask a question:Does each premise

in this example have enough information in it to
get you to the conclusion: you will pass your
courses?
You are a student who is studying hard, it
follows that you will pass your courses. O.K.
that seems to make sense and pass our test.
What about the first premise?
All student who study hard will pass their courses, it
follows that you will pass your courses.Is there
something missing here? Something that we need to
get to the conclusion? Yes. In order to get to the
information in the conclusion, we need to know that
you are a student who is studying hard.

Since at least one of the premises does not have

enough information in it to get you to the
information in the conclusion, these premises
must be taken as dependent.
One method you can use to determine if the
premises under question are dependent is this.
Cover up one of the premises. Can you
determine what is implied? If so, then the

premises are dependent.

Example
All cats have fleas and Fluffy is a cat, so Fluffy
must have fleas.
Can you determine what is implied with
certainty?
Yes, therefore the premises are dependent.
Your Examples:
All men are dogs. John is a man; therefore, John is a dog.
All bad students have to sit in front of the class. Stork is sitting in front of
the class, so he must be a bad student.
All kids eat junk food; Lin is a kid, therefore, he eats junkfood.
I wear hats, and hats make you go bald. Therefore, I will be bald.

Your examples:
Joan is in better shape. She works out at Ballys, and working
out at Ballys helps one to get in better shape.
All cats like warm places. Oreo is a cat, so she likes warm
places.
Kate eats salads and salads are healthy foods, so Kate eats
healthy foods.

How about an example of an argument with

independent premises?
What are independent premises?
Premises are independent when each premise has in it enough

information to get you to the information in the conclusion.

Example:
Smoking in the workplace should be banned. Smoke damages
computer hardware and software; second hand smoke causes
many health problems, including cancer, and finally, smoking on
the job presents a poor impression to potential clients.

Are these premises dependent or independent?

Does each one have enough information in it to
get you to the information in the conclusion?
Yes. They are independent. But lets use our
test to check.
Can we determine what is implied here? No, so
the premises are independent.
Your examples:
Ashley loves me as much as I love her, so we moved in together. Our
love is so deep we go to the same school. Therefore, we belong together.
Rain can cause you to wreck your car. Rain also can make you slip. So
rain causes a lot of problems for people.
In spring the flowers bloom and all the animals fall in love. Therefore,
Spring is the best season.
The desks in this classroom are extremely small. Harris-Stowe should
purchase new desks, so tall students can sit more comfortably.

Your Examples:
Drinking and driving is not safe. Drinking slows down a bodys
natural reflexes, and it affects judgment.
Men can be a pain in the rear end. They can also make you cry.
Men, therefore, cause a lot of stress to women.

 Puppies can cause problems. They chew on furniture and pee on

stuff.

How about an example that sums this all up?

All men are slobs, as indicated by the many
wives unhappy with the housekeeping habits of
their husbands. Harry is a man, so it necessarily
follows that Harry is a slob.
Do we have any supported premises here?
Yes, the premise All men are slobs.

Are the premises dependent or independent?

Lets check
Does Harry is a man have enough information in it to get you
to Harry is a slob?
No, we need to know all men are slobs.
Lets use our test to check.

All men are slobs, as indicated by the many

wives unhappy with the housekeeping habits of
their husbands. Harry is a man, so it necessarily
follows that Harry is a slob.
Can we determine what is implied?
Yes, we can determine that all men are slobs is what is implied.
The premises, then, in this argument are dependent.
What does the diagram look like?

Another Example:

 The Constitution guarantees the separation of religion and the

state. Seeing that prayer is part of religion, and in view of the
fact that public schools are supported by the state, prayer must be
banned in public schools. You should vote, then, for Senator
Smith, since she supports the banning of prayer in public
schools, as indicated by her statements of October 29, 2003.

The next concept we must cover is the concept

of an enthymeme.
What is an enthymeme?
An enthymeme is an argument with a part missing or implied. That is, it
is an argument with either a missing conclusion or a missing premise.
When you have an enthymeme, you must supply the missing part (write it
down last, so it will be numbered last) and include it on your diagram.

Example:
All children who go to Josies preschool are smart, so little Joey
must be smart.
Go ahead and determine what is missing, write it last, and
following the steps we went over in class, diagram this
argument.

Another Example:
All students who study hard will pass this class, and Harry has
studied very hard in this class.
5.
6.