Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

FORMS

OF
REASONI
Group 4: AQUINO, BALINGAO, and PORTES
FORMS OF
a. REASONING
Deductive Reasoning
b. Inductive Reasoning
c. Inductive Generalization
d. Analogy
DEDUCTI
VE
REASONI
Deductive
Reasoning
• In deductive reasoning, a conclusion
is compelled by known facts.
• Deduction is often expressed in the
form of a syllogism, in which a
conclusion is inferred from two
known premises.
Deductive
Reasoning
All men are mortal. Major Premise
Socrates is a man. Minor Premise
Socrates is Conclusion
mortal.
Deductive
Reasoning
• The major premise is usually a broad
and generally applicable truth.
• The minor premise is usually a more
specific and narrowly applicable
fact.
• The conclusion is true as a
consequence of the premises.
Deductive
Reasoning
• The principle behind a syllogism is that
what is true of the universal is also true
of the specific.
• In deductive reasoning, you reason from
the general to the particular, so it is
essential that the general statement is a
universal truth.
• If the major premise is true and the minor
premise is true the conclusion cannot be
false.
Deductive
Judge
Reasoning
Aldisert outlines syllogisms from
several watershed Supreme Court opinions,
including the following syllogism from
Marbury v. Madison:
• The Judicial Department’s province and
duty is to say what the law is.
• The Supreme Court is the Judicial
Department.
• The Supreme Court’s province and duty is
to say what the law is.
Deductive
Reasoning
• In deductive legal reasoning, the decision
maker begins with a specific set of facts,
looks at the law that applies to those facts,
and reaches a verdict.

• If Joe's Liquor Store sells beer to 14-year-


old Richard, and there is a law prohibiting
the sale of alcohol to anyone under the age
of 18, then Joe’s Liquor Store is guilty.
INDUCTIV
E
REASONI
Inductive
Reasoning
Inductive reasoning begins with a
particular proposition, and ends either:

• With a general proposition


("reasoning by generalization"), or
• With a particular proposition
("reasoning by analogy").
Inductive

Reasoning
premises are intended to provide good but
not conclusive evidence of the truth of our
conclusion
Violet, a student in legal logic class, has a
good study habit and is always attentive in
class discussion.
She is a consistent dean’s lister.
Therefore, it is probable that Violet will not
fail in her legal logic class.
Inductive

Reasoning
A conclusion obtained through inductive
reasoning is probable, not certain.
• Inductive reasoning specifically induces a
particular premise that is then used as the
basis for making a decision.
• Inductive reasoning follows a bottom to
top reasoning that is based on cause and
effect analysis
Inductive
Reasoning
• A conclusion that is reached after the
generalizations is the hypothesis.

• Inductive reasoning is based on broad


generalizations and these are also based
on specific observations that are also
scientific in nature.
SUMMARY
Deductive Inductive
Reasoning Reasoning
• Based on General • It induces premises for
Premise reasoning
• Based on true premise • Broad generalizations
and true conclusions based on specific
• Top down reasoning observations
• Uses scientific method to • Bottom up reasoning
test a hypothesis • Conclusion is the
• Follow steps hypothesis
• Broad generalizations
INDUCTIVE
REASONING
BY
GENERALIZATI
Inductive Reasoning By
Generalization
• Drawing of particular conclusion based
on number of particular instances
• Based on concept of probability
• A conclusion reached is not considered
truth; rather it is a proposition that is
probably true than not
Inductive Reasoning By
Generalization
• To use this successfully, ensure that
your supporting facts represent an
appropriate sample size and
representative
• Less certain than deductive reasoning
• The more evidence is available, the
higher the probability of the conclusion
How to analyze using this
method
Identify things being compared (A and B) and the
property that is being attributed to the conclusion.

Look for property that is to make A and B similar.

If a conclusion is based on inadequate evidence,


generalization is faulty.

Analyze whether the evidence is relevant.


Inductive Reasoning By
Example:
Generalization
- Student B, of University of Luzon, died last week. The
reason of his death was food poison.
- Student C, of University of Luzon, died last week. The
reason of his death was food poison.
- Student D, of University of Luzon, died last week. The
reason of his death was food poison.
- Student E, of University of Luzon, died last week. The
reason of his death was food poison.
- Student F, of University of Luzon, died last week. The
reason of his death was food poison.
- Therefore, the reason of death of all the students of
University of Luzon who died last week was food poison.
Inductive Reasoning By
Generalization
• Premise One: Appellate Case 1 held that
a contract with a vague term was void.
• Premise Two: Appellate Case 2 held that
a contract with a vague term was void.
• Premise Three: Appellate Case 3 held
that a contract with a vague term was
void.
• Conclusion: Therefore, all contracts
with vague terms are void.
REASONIN
G BY
ANALOGY
Reasoning by
Analogy
Reasoning by
Analogy
• Step 1 – Be aware of the characteristic of your
case
• Step 2 – Be aware of number of previous
cases that may share same
characteristics of your case
• Step 3 – Based on the similarities, you
assume that your case has other
similar
characteristics to the analogous
experiences, effectively placing
the
Reasoning by
Analogy
• Premise One: The present case deals
with [Vague Term A], [Fact B] and [Fact
C].
• Premise Two: Appellate Case dealt with
[Vague Term A], [Fact B] and [Fact C]
and held that the contract was void.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the contract in
the present case is void.
Reasoning by
Analogy
United States v. Leonard, 494 F.2d 955 (D.C. Cir.
1974) illustrates one such argument.
• A federal circuit court of appeals analogized paid
informers and accomplices who give testimony
against their cohorts to witnesses who are granted
immunity.
• The comparison was based on the notion that all had
an interest in testifying against another at trial beyond
mere truth-telling.
• But the Wisconsin Supreme Court later characterized
the analogy as "questionable," concluding that it
lacked a "rational basis.”
Reasoning by
Analogy
Conyers v. State, 691 A.2d 802 (1997), the
appellant argued that the same rules should
apply to in-court identification procedures as
are applied to pretrial identifications. The court
called this a false analogy because the policy
concerns raised by overly suggestive pretrial
identifications are absent in court where the
identification is inherently suggestive since the
defendant is always sitting at the trial table.
Sources:
• Use Logic to Win Arguments: A Primer for Lawyers. (2018, June 10).
Retrieved from https://lawyerist.com/logic-based-arguments-for-
lawyers/
• Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning: Make Smarter Arguments, Better
Decisions, and Stronger Conclusions. (2018, June 14). Retrieved from
https://fs.blog/2018/05/deductive-inductive-reasoning/
• Germano, M. (2012, January 19). Logic 101 for Legal Reasoning.
Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/mgerman/logic-101-for-legal-
reasoning
• Ellsworth, P. (2005). Legal Reasoning. University of Michigan Law
School Scholarship Repository. Retrieved June 28, 2018, from
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&cont
ext=book_chapters.
• Legal skills and debates in Scotland. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=68380
§ion=2.1