Top Banner
LOGIC -The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos , which is sometimes translated as "sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". - By GottlobFrege (1848-1925) From his 1956 paper "The Thought : A Logical Inquiry"logic is the task of discovering the laws of truth, not of assertion or thought.” - Alfred Tarski (1901-1983) From his Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive sciences, Dover, page xi.-"logic" ... [is] ... the name of a discipline which analyzes the meaning of the concepts common to all the sciences, and establishes the general laws governing the concepts.” -may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. - the study of the principles of correct reasoning . - aim of logic is 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. 1. Proposition and sentences - -George Boole (1815-1864) he developed logic as an abstract mathematical system consisting of defined terms( propositions) - Aristotelian logic identifies a proposition as a sentence which affirms or denies a predicate of a subject . A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either True or false PROPOSITION VS SENTENCES - expression of judgment - made up of concepts - made up of words . -Either true or false - not the bearer of truth or falsehood - all statements are sentences -not all sentences are propositions . Compound proposition- meaning it contains several propositions: Ex: (based on case) The British were at the gates of Hamburg and Bremen and threatening to cut off Germany from Denmark. This proposition contains three propositions: The British were at the gates of Hamburg. The British were at the gates of Bremen. The British were threatening to cut off Germany from Denmark. hypothetical proposition- could be true even if both of its parts are false Ex:(based on case) If God exists, objective moral values exist. (Neither the first part, “God exists,” nor the second part, “objective moral values exist,” is being asserted. Rather, it is only asserted that if God exists, then objective moral values exist. The hypothetical proposition above could be true even if both of its parts are false: it could be the case that if God existed objective moral values would exist, but as it happens God does not exist, and also objective moral values do not exist. **) - Questions, commands, and exclamations do not assert anything, so they aren’t propositions. None of these are propositions: Study logic more often, please. Yay, Cardinals! What time is it? iii. ARGUMENTS, PREMISES and CONCLUSIONS Arguments- to mean a set of propositions in which some propositions--the premises--are asserted as support or evidence for another--the conclusion. 2 Parts of Argument Premises -a statement in an argument that sets forth evidence or reasons.** Indicator: Since, because, as, For, given that, assuming that, in as much as , The reason is that, In view of the fact that Conclusion: the statement in an argument that the premises are claimed to support or imply.** Indicator: therefore, Thus, So, Consequently, As a result, It follows that, Hence, Which means that, Which implies that… BEWARE: sometimes indicator words do not guarantee an argument, if they’re used in a different way. Premise + Conclusion= Argument Ex: All crimes are violations of the law. Theft is a crime. Therefore, theft is a violation of the law. iv. MORE COMPLEX ARGUMENTS complex argument is a set of arguments with either overlapping premises or conclusions (or both). (**-- very common because many issues and debates are complicated and involve extended reasoning. To understand complex arguments, we need to analyze the logical structure of the reasoning involved. Drawing a diagram can be very helpful.) § A09.1 Argument maps An argument map is a diagram that captures the logical structure of a simple or complex argument. In the simplest possible case, we have a single premise supporting a single conclusion. Consider this argument : Example 1 :Life is short, and so we should seize every moment.
114

legal technique and logic

Nov 03, 2014

Download

Documents

legal technique and logic
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: legal technique and logic

LOGIC-The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes translated as "sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio".-By GottlobFrege (1848-1925) From his 1956 paper "The Thought : A Logical Inquiry"logic is the task of discovering the laws of truth, not of assertion or thought.” - Alfred Tarski (1901-1983) From his Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive sciences, Dover, page xi.-"logic" ... [is] ... the name of a discipline which analyzes the meaning of the concepts common to all the sciences, and establishes the general laws governing the concepts.”-may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. -the study of the principles of correct reasoning. - aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that wemay use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructingarguments of our own.

1. Proposition and sentences--George Boole (1815-1864) he developed logic as an abstract mathematical system consisting of defined terms( propositions)-Aristotelian logic identifies a proposition as a sentence which affirms or denies a predicate of a subject. A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either True or falsePROPOSITION VS SENTENCES-expression of judgment- made up of concepts -made up of words.-Either true or false - not the bearer of truth or falsehood-all statements are sentences -not all sentences are propositions.Compound proposition- meaning it contains several propositions:Ex: (based on case)The British were at the gates of Hamburg and Bremen and threatening to cut off Germany from Denmark.This proposition contains three propositions:The British were at the gates of Hamburg.The British were at the gates of Bremen.The British were threatening to cut off Germany from Denmark.hypothetical proposition- could be true even if both of its parts are falseEx:(based on case)If God exists, objective moral values exist. (Neither the first part, “God exists,” nor the second part, “objective moral values exist,” is being asserted. Rather, it is only asserted that if God exists, then objective moral values exist. The hypothetical proposition above could be true even if both of its parts are false: it could be the case that if God existed objective moral values would exist, but as it happens God does not exist, and also objective moral values do not exist. **)- Questions, commands, and exclamations do not assert anything, so they aren’t propositions. None of these are propositions:Study logic more often, please.Yay, Cardinals!What time is it?iii. ARGUMENTS, PREMISES and CONCLUSIONSArguments- to mean a set of propositions in which some propositions--the premises--are asserted as support or evidence for another--the conclusion.2 Parts of ArgumentPremises-a statement in an argument that sets forth evidence or reasons.** Indicator: Since, because, as, For, given that, assuming that, in as much as , The reason is that, In view of the fact that Conclusion: the statement in an argument that the premises are claimed to support or imply.** Indicator: therefore, Thus, So, Consequently, As a result, It follows that, Hence, Which means that, Which implies that…BEWARE: sometimes indicator words do not guarantee an argument, if they’re used in a different way.Premise + Conclusion= ArgumentEx: All crimes are violations of the law.Theft is a crime.Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.iv. MORE COMPLEX ARGUMENTS complex argument is a set of arguments with either overlapping premises or conclusions (or both). (**-- very common because many issues and debates are complicated and involve extended reasoning. To understand complex arguments, we need to analyze the logical structure of the reasoning involved. Drawing a diagram can be very helpful.)§ A09.1 Argument mapsAn argument map is a diagram that captures the logical structure of a simple or complex argument. In the simplest possible case, we have a single premise supporting a single conclusion. Consider this argument :

Example 1 :Life is short, and so we should seize every moment. Let us now look at another example:Example 2: Paris is in France, and France is in Europe. So obviously Paris is in Europe.

Here is the corresponding argument map: Note that the two premises are connected together before linking to the conclusion. This merging of the links indicate that the two premises are co-premises which work together in a single argument to support the conclusion. In other words, they do not provide independent reasons for accepting the conclusion. Without one of the premises, the other premise would fail to support the conclusion.This should be contrasted with the following example where the premises are not co-premises. They provide independent reasons for supporting the conclusion:Example3 [1] Smoking is unhealthy, since [2] it can cause cancer. Furthermore, [3] it also increases the chance of heart attacks and strokes.

Instead of writing the premises and the conclusion in full in the argument map, we can label them and write down their numbers instead: This diagram tells us that [2] and [3] are independent reasons supporting [1]. In other words, without [2], [3] would still support [1], and without [3], [2] would still support [1]. (Although the argument is stronger with both premises.)Finally, it is also possible to have a single reason giving rise to multiple conclusions :

Page 2: legal technique and logic

Example 4 [1] Gold is a metal. [2] So it conducts electricity. [3] It also conducts heat. § A09.2 More complicated examplesNow that we know the basics of argument maps, we can combine the templates we learn above to represent more complicated arguments, by following thisPROCEDURE

1. Identify the most important or main conclusion(s) of the argument.2. Identify the premises used to support the conclusion(s). These are the premises of the main argument.3. If additional arguments have been given to support any of these premises, identify the premises of these additional arguments as well, and repeat this

procedure.4. Label the premises and conclusions using numerals or letters.5. Write down the labels in a tree structure and draw arrows leading from sets of premises to the conclusions they support.

Let us try this out on this argument:Po cannot come to the party because her scooter is broken. Dipsy also cannot come because he has to pick up his new hat. I did not invite the other teletubbies, so no teletubby will come up to the party.We now label and refomulate the premises and the conclusions:

1. Po cannot come to the party.2. Po's scooter is broken.3. Dipsy cannot come to the party.4. Dipsy has to pick up his new hat.5. I did not invite the other teletubbies.6. [Conclusion] No teletubby will come up to the party.

We can then draw the argument map like this:

This is an example of what we might call a multi-layered complex argument, where an intermediate conclusion is used as a premise in another argument. So [1] and [3] are the intermediate conclusions, which together with [5] lead to the main conclusion [6]. This complex argument is therefore made up of three overlapping simple arguments in total. Of course, in this particular case you can understand the argument perfectly well without using this diagram. But with more complicated arguments, a picture can be an indispensable aid.v. Recognizing argumentssis iaddmonalngyongisangdoc..balenakapowerpointna yon.vi DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE A deductive argument claims that its premises make its conclusion certain. In contrast, aninductive argument claims that its premises merely make its conclusion probable.Deductive argumentsLet us consider a deductive argument. If the premises when true succeed in making its conclusion certain, the argument is valid. If the premises when true fail to make its conclusion certain, the argument is invalid. Let’s look at an example:based on caseExample 11. All mammals have lungs.2. All whales are mammals.3. Therefore all whales have lungs.This deductive argument is valid because the conclusion follows with certainty if the premises are true. There is no possible way for the premises to be true and yet the conclusion false. But consider:Example 2:1. All eight-legged creatures have wings.2. A spider is an eight-legged creature.3. Therefore spiders have wings.This argument is also valid, because if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. The problem here is not that the argument is invalid, but that one of the premises is false.Now consider an argument with true premises and a true conclusion that is invalid:Example 31. If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, I would be wealthy.2. I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.3. Therefore I am not wealthy.Both premises are true, but the conclusion does not follow with certainty. There are many ways to be wealthy without owning all the gold in Fort Knox.A valid deductive argument with true premises is a sound argument. A sound argument is often called a “proof,” but this term can be misleading. If the premises themselves are absolutely certain, then a sound argument does indeed offer proof, as in the below example:Example 41. All bachelors are unmarried.2. All bachelors are male.3. Therefore all bachelors are unmarried males.The premises are certain here because they are true by definition, and the argument is sound, so the conclusion is proven. However, consider:Example 51. All bachelors are unmarried.2. Luke is a bachelor.3. Therefore Luke is unmarried.This is also a sound argument (a valid argument with true premises), but the conclusion is not “proven” in the same way as in the argument above. Why? Because the second premise is anempirical claim about existence, not merely a statement about the meaning of terms. As such, it is always possible it is false. For example, maybe during a drunk night in Vegas I married a stripper but don’t remember the event. Or maybe everything I’ve ever experienced is a fabrication of The Matrix and in the “real world” I am married to a girl named Susan.So, even a deductive argument cannot offer 100% conclusive proof if one of the premises makes a claim about existence. Philosophers understand the rules of propositional logic so well that it is rare for one of them to publish an invalid argument. So, in philosophy, nearly all disagreement concerns whether or not the premises of a deductive argument are true or false, probable or improbable – not whether the argument is valid or invalid.

Page 3: legal technique and logic

But most of us are not professional philosophers, and we advance invalid arguments all the time. So we’re going to spend some time studying the rules of logic so that we, too, can stop advancing invalid arguments.Inductive argumentsInductive arguments do not try to establish their conclusions with certainty.

- claims that its premises make the conclusion probable. Inductive arguments cannot be valid or invalid. Instead, they are weak or strong, better or worse. And even when the premises are true and provide very strong support for the conclusion, the conclusion cannot be certain. The strongest inductive argument is not as conclusive as a sound deductive argument.

Here is a simple example:Example 11. Most corporation lawyers are conservatives.2. Betty Morse is a corporation lawyer.3. Therefore Betty Morse is a conservative.This is a pretty good inductive argument, because (let us say) both premises are true. Thus, the conclusion is more likely true than false.Vii Validity and Truthvalid argumentcan have any combination of true or false premises and true or false conclusions., except that a valid argumentcannot have true premises and a false conclusion. Propositions (premises and conclusions) can be true or false. Arguments cannot.Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid. Inductive arguments and propositions cannot.It is the task of science and philosophy to determine whether the premises of arguments are true or false, and the purpose of logic is to determine whether deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and whether inductive arguments are strong or weak.- An argument can be valid but not truthful, if its phrasing is technically correct but the point it is ultimately making is false. An argument can also be truthful but not valid, as it can raise a true point and yet not be properly phrased so as to be logically valid.-Lets see the table for clearer example

-Truth of Statements, Validity of Reasoning

True Premises, False Conclusion

0. Valid Impossible: no valid argument can have true premises and a false conclusion.

1. InvalidCats are mammals.Dogs are mammals.Therefore, dogs are cats.

True Premises, True Conclusion

2. ValidCats are mammals.Tigers are cats.Therefore, tigers are mammals.

3. InvalidCats are mammals.Tigers are mammals.Therefore, tigers are cats.

False Premises, False Conclusion

4. ValidDogs are cats.Cats are birds.Therefore, dogs are birds.

5. InvalidCats are birds.Dogs are birds.Therefore, dogs are cats.

False Premises, True Conclusion

6. ValidCats are birds.Birds are mammals.Therefore, cats are mammals.

7. InvalidCats are birds.Tigers are birds.Therefore, tigers are cats.

The distinction between truth and validity is the fundamental distinction of formal logic. You cannot understand how logicians see things until this distinction is clear and familiar.The seven sample arguments above help us establish the following general principles of logic:

True premises do not guarantee validity.(Proved by cases #1 and #3 in the table above.)

A true conclusion does not guarantee validity.(Proved by cases #3 and #7.)

True premises and a true conclusion together do not guarantee validity.

Page 4: legal technique and logic

(Proved by case #3.) Valid reasoning does not guarantee a true conclusion.

(Proved by case #4.) False premises do not guarantee invalidity.

(Proved by cases #4 and #6.) A false conclusion does not guarantee invalidity.

(Proved by case #4.) False premises and a false conclusion together do not guarantee invalidity.

(Proved by case #4.) Invalid reasoning does not guarantee a false conclusion.

(Proved by cases #3 and #5.)Therefore, while the truth of propositions and the validity of reasoning are distinct, the relationship between them is not entirely straightforward. We cannot say that truth and validity are utterly independent because the impossibility of "case zero" (a valid argument with true premises and false conclusion) shows that one combination of truth-values is an absolute bar to validity. When an argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it must be invalid. In fact, this is how we define invalidity.On the other hand, this partial reliance of validity on truth-value only exists for what logicians call the semantic concept of validity. In a few weeks we'll encounter a syntactic concept of validity which makes no reference to truth at all.Despite these wrinkles, we should never be misled by true premises or true conclusions to suppose (automatically) that an argument is valid. Nor should we be misled by false premises or false conclusions to suppose that it is invalid. Nor should we be misled by valid reasoning to suppose that statements are true, or by invalid reasoning to suppose that statements are false. If we recognize this, then we have already far surpassed "common sense" in protecting ourselves from deception.Truth and validity are combined in the concept of soundness. An argument is sound if (and only if) all its premises are true and its reasoning is valid; all others are unsound. It follows that all sound arguments have true conclusions.Here's another version of our table, this time showing that only one of the argument types is sound.

Type All premises true? Conclusion true? Reasoning valid? Possible? Sound?

0 yes no yes IMPOSSIBLE N/A

1 yes no no possible unsound

2 yes yes yes possible SOUND

3 yes yes no possible unsound

4 no no yes possible unsound

5 no no no possible unsound

6 no yes yes possible unsound

7 no yes no possible unsound

Empirical scientists and private detectives tell us whether statements are true. Logicians tell us whether reasoning is valid.How do logicians test validity? Basically, they test for invalidity. We know exactly what invalidity in an argument is: to have true premises and a false conclusion. An argument is valid in a weak sense if it simply is not invalid. This weak sense of validity turns out to suffice for all the purposes of rigorous reasoning in science, mathematics, and daily life.But to test for invalidity, we must know when we are dealing with true premises and a false conclusion. However, logicians do not know whether statements are true or false. (They are not empirical scientists or private detectives.) But despite this ignorance, logicians can still test validity. One way is to assume that an argument's premises are all true and the conclusion false (i.e. assume invalidity) and see whether we can get away with it. Another way is to make all possible assumptions about the truth and falsity of those statements. If there is a "possible universe" in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid for all universes. (Can you see why?)Viii ARGUMENTS and EXPLANATION- Explanationsis a group of statements that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon.One of the most important kinds of nonargument is the explanation. An explanationThe event or phenomenon in question is usually accepted as a matter of fact.Examples:based on casesThe Challenger spacecraft exploded after liftoff because an O-ring failed in one ofthe booster rockets.The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun arescattered by particles in the atmosphere.Cows can digest grass, while humans cannot, because their digestive systems containenzymes not found in humans.

two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans. The explanandumis the statement that describes the event or phenomenonto be explained, explanansis the statement or group of statements thatpurports to do the explaining. In the first example above, the explanandum is the statement ‘‘The Challenger spacecraft exploded after liftoff,’’ and the explanans is ‘‘AnO-ring failed in one of the booster rockets.’’Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they often contain the

Page 5: legal technique and logic

indicator word ‘‘because.’’ Yet explanations are not arguments because in an explanationthe purpose of the explanans is to shed light on, or to make sense of, theexplanandum event—not to prove that it occurred. In other words, the purpose of theexplanans is to show why something is the case, while in an argument, the purpose ofthe premises is to prove that something is the case.In the first example above, the fact that the Challenger exploded is known toeveryone. The statement that an O-ring failed in one of the booster rockets is notintended to prove that the spacecraft exploded but rather to show why it exploded. Inthe second example, the fact that the sky is blue is readily apparent. The intention ofthe passage is to explain why it appears blue—not to prove that it appears blue.Similarly, in the third example, virtually everyone knows that people cannot digestgrass. The intention of the passage is to explain why this is true.Thus, to distinguish explanations from arguments, -identify the statement that iseither the explanandum or the conclusion (usually this is the statement that precedesthe word ‘‘because’’). -If this statement describes an accepted matter of fact, and if theremaining statements purport to shed light on this statement, then the passage is anexplanation.This method works for practically all passages that are either explanations or arguments(but not both). However, as with expository passages and illustrations, thereare some passages that can be interpreted as both explanations and arguments.Example:Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than menbecause men metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstreamwhereas women do not.The purpose of this passage could be to prove the first statement to those people whodo not accept it as fact, and to shed light on that fact to those people who do accept it. Alternately, the passage could be intended to prove the first statement to a singleperson who accepts its truth on blind faith or incomplete experience, and simultaneouslyto shed light on this truth. Thus, the passage can be correctly interpreted as bothan explanation and an argument.Perhaps the greatest problem confronting the effort to distinguish explanationsfrom arguments lies in determining whether something is an accepted matter of fact.Obviously what is accepted by one person may not be accepted by another. Thus, theeffort often involves determining which person or group of people the passage isdirected to—the intended audience. Sometimes the source of the passage (textbook,newspaper, technical journal, etc.) will decide the issue. But when the passage is takentotally out of context, this may prove impossible. In those circumstances the onlypossible answer may be to say that if the passage is an argument, then such-and-such is the conclusion and such-and-such are the premises.

III. LANGUAGEa. USES OF LANGUAGE

1. Functions of Language

The formal patterns of correct reasoning can all be conveyed through ordinary language, but then so can a lot of other things. In fact, we use language in many different ways, some of which are irrelevant to any attempt to provide reasons for what we believe. It is helpful to identify at least three distinct uses of language:

a. The informative use of language involves an effort to communicate some content. When I tell a child, "The fifth of May is a Mexican holiday," or write to you that "Logic is the study of correct reasoning," or jot a note to myself, "Jennifer—555-3769," I am using language informatively. This kind of use presumes that the content of what is being communicated is actually true, so it will be our central focus in the study of logic.

b. An expressive use of language, on the other hand, intends only to vent some feeling, or perhaps to evoke some feeling from other people. When I say, "Friday afternoons are dreary," or yell "Ouch!" I am using language expressively. Although such uses don't convey any information, they do serve an important function in everyday life, since how we feel sometimes matters as much as—or more than—what we hold to be true.

c. Finally, directive uses of language aim to cause or to prevent some overt action by a human agent. When I say "Shut the door," or write "Read the textbook," or memo myself, "Don't rely so heavily on the passive voice," I am using language directively. The point in each of these cases is to make someone perform (or forswear) a particular action. This is a significant linguistic function, too, but like the expressive use, it doesn't always relate logically to the truth of our beliefs.

Page 6: legal technique and logic

Literal and Emotive MeaningEven single words or short phrases can exhibit the distinction between purely informative and partially expressive uses of language. Many of the most common words and phrases of any language have both a literal or descriptive meaning that refers to the way things are and an emotive meaning that expresses some (positive or negative) feeling about them. Thus, the choice of which word to use in making a statement can be used in hopes of evoking a particular emotional response.This is a natural function of ordinary language, of course. We often do wish to convey some portion of our feelings along with information. There is a good deal of poetry in everyday communication, and poetry without emotive meaning is pretty dull. But when we are primarily interested in establishing the truth—as we are when assessing the logical merits of an argument—the use of words laden with emotive meaning can easily distract us from our purpose.Kinds of Agreement and DisagreementIn fact, an excessive reliance on emotively charged language can create the appearance of disagreement between parties who do not differ on the facts at all, and it can just as easily disguise substantive disputes under a veneer of emotive agreement. Since the degrees of agreement in belief and attitude are independent of each other, there are four possible combinations at work here:Agreement in belief and agreement in attitude: There aren't any problems in this instance, since both parties hold the same positions and have the same feelings about them.Agreement in belief but disagreement in attitude: This case, if unnoticed, may become the cause of endless (but pointless) shouting between people whose feelings differ sharply about some fact upon which they are in total agreement.Disagreement in belief but agreement in attitude: In this situation, parties may never recognize, much less resolve, their fundamental difference of opinion, since they are lulled by their shared feelings into supposing themselves allied.Disagreement in belief and disagreement in attitude: Here the parties have so little in common that communication between them often breaks down entirely.It is often valuable, then, to recognize the levels of agreement or disagreement at work in any exchange of views. That won't always resolve the dispute between two parties, of course, but it will ensure that they don't waste their time on an inappropriate method of argument or persuasion. Emotively Neutral LanguageFor our purposes in assessing the validity of deductive arguments and the reliability of inductive reasoning, it will be most directly helpful to eliminate emotive meaning entirely whenever we can. Although it isn't always easy to achieve emotively neutral language in every instance, and the result often lacks the colorful character of our usual public discourse, it is worth the trouble and insipidity because it makes it much easier to arrive at a settled understanding of what is true.In many instances, the informal fallacies we will consider next result from an improper use of emotionally charged language in the effort to persuade someone to accept a proposition at an emotional level, without becoming convinced that there are legitimate grounds for believing it to be true.

IV. DEDUCTIVE REASONING DEDUCTIVE REASONING Categorical Propositions

Categorical Propositions and Classes Quality, Quantity, and Distribution The Traditional Square of Opposition What are Categorical Propositions? Categorical Propositions are statements that relate two different classes of things. The classes are denoted respectively by the subject term and the predicate term; and the proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject is included in or excluded from

the class denoted by the predicate term. Example: In the case of Harry Stonehill vs Hon. Jose Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967

Page 7: legal technique and logic

Prosecutors alleged that the contested search warrants are valid. It was issued in accordance with law and that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners' consent.

Search warrants issued in accordance with law are valid warrants. In the case of Lambino vs Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006: The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least

twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals

The Individuals supporting the petition filed by Lambino group are registered voters. Essentially, either all or part of the subject is included in all or part of the predicate. Four Standard-form

Categorical Propositions Universal affirmative propositions Universal negative propositions Particular affirmative propositions Particular negative propositions Standard-form A proposition that expresses the relation between subject and predicate with complete clarity. A categorical proposition is in its standard form if and only if it conforms to any of the four standard-form

categorical propositions. Example of a Standard-form Categorical Proposition In the case of Ebralinang vs The Superintendent of Schools of Cebu G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993: Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite

the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion" (p. 10, Rollo) which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God" (p. 8, Rollo).

Example of a Standard-form Categorical Proposition All members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem,

and recite the patriotic pledge. No members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and

recite the patriotic pledge. Some members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national

anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge. Some members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are not teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national

anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge. Standard-form Categorical Proposition is analyzed as follows: All members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem,

and recite the patriotic pledge. Quantifier: all Subject term: members of Jevoha’s Witnesses Copula: are Predicate term: teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the

national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge NOTE Many categorical propositions are not in standard form because they do not begin with the words “all”, “no”

and some” which are called QUANTIFIERS. Some words “are” and “are not”, “is” and “is not”, “will” and “will not” are called COPULA. Universal Affirmative Propositions “A” propositions every member of the first class is also a member of the second class.

From the first example… All members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem,

and recite the patriotic pledge.

Page 8: legal technique and logic

It is about two classes:1) the class of “all members of Jehova’s Witnesses”2) the class of “all persons teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the

patriotic pledge” “Universal Affirmative” is appropriate, because the proposition affirms that the relationship of class inclusion

holds between the two classes and says that the inclusion is complete or universal. Universal Negative Propositions “E” propositions the first class is wholly excluded from the second From the second example… No members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and

recite the patriotic pledge. Saying that the first class is wholly excluded from the second. “Universal Negative” is appropriate because the proposition denies that the relation of class inclusion holds

between the two classes and denies it universally. Particular Affirmative Propositions “I” propositions at least one member of the class designated by the subject term is also a member of the class designated by the

predicate term. From the third example… Some members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national

anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge. This proposition neither affirms nor denies that all members of Jehova’s Witnesses are teaching… it makes no

pronouncement on the matter. Particular Negative Propositions “O” propositions At least one member of the class designated by the subject term is excluded from the whole of the class

designated by the predicate term. From the last example… Some members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are not teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national

anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge. Saying that at least one member of the classes designated by the subject term is excluded from the whole of the

class designated by the predicate term. Critical Examples Universal Affirmative Proposition contention of the prosecution in the case of LEGASPI vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, G.R. No. L-72119 May 29,

1987 All of the complaints(for attempted murder against petitioner, gambling, theft of fighting cocks) filed by the

Tondo Foreshore Area residents against their barangay chairman were dismissed. Universal Negative Proposition In the case of VASQUEZ vs. CA, G.R. No. 118971 September 15, 1999 None of the reporter, editor, nor the publisher of the newspaper who were the ones most obviously responsible

for the publication of the allegedly offensive news report was charged in court. Critical Examples Particular Affirmative Proposition In the case of VASQUEZ vs. CA, G.R. No. 118971 September 15, 1999 Some residents from the Tondo Foreshore Area went to see then National Housing Authority (NHA) General

Manager Lito Atienza regarding their complaint against their Barangay Chairman, Jaime Olmedo. Particular Negative Proposition In the case of VASQUEZ vs. CA, G.R. No. 118971 September 15, 1999 The existence of malice is not present in the case of the four elements under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code

constituting libel. QUALITY AND QUANTITY

Page 9: legal technique and logic

QUALITY Affirmative Negative Affirmative Propositions If the proposition affirms some class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its quality is affirmative. Universal Affirmative Proposition (A) Particular Affirmative Proposition (I) Negative Propositions If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its quality is negative. Universal Negative Proposition (E) Particular Negative Proposition (O) DISTRIBUTION Refers to whether a certain class is totally or partially included in or excluded from another class. Refers to whether a term in the categorical proposition is distributed or undistributed.

Distributed Term a term of a categorical proposition that is used with reference to every member of a class.

Undistributed Term If the term is not being used to refer to each and every member of the class

In the case of PEOPLE vs. GENOSA [G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004]

A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men.

Examples of Distribution A: All battered women are wives or women having intimate relationship with men. An A proposition distributes the subject to the predicate, but not the reverse. E: No battered woman receives only one cycle of battering. An E proposition distributes bidirectionally between the subject and predicate. I: Some women who are repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man are

battered women. Both terms in an I proposition are undistributed. O: Some women who are repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man are

not considered battered women. In an O proposition only the predicate is distributed. THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION Four ways in which propositions may be opposed: Contradictories Contraries Subcontraries Subalternation Illustration A - To find a person guilty of libel under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be

proved: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.

E –No elements were present in the case. I – Some of the elements of libel were present in the case. O - Of the four elements under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code constituting libel, the existence of malice was

not present in the case. Contraries (A and E) A - To find a person guilty of libel under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be

proved: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. (statement of the law –all must be present)

Page 10: legal technique and logic

E – No elements were present in the case. (additional proposition) Contradictories Example (A and O) (E and I) A - To find a person guilty of libel under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be

proved: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. (statement of the law –all must be present)

O - Of the four elements under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code constituting libel, the existence of malice was not present in the case.

Contradictories E – No elements were present in the case. (additional proposition) I – Some of the elements of libel were present in the case. Subcontraries Examples (I and O prop) I – only the first three elements of libel were present in the case. O - Of the four elements under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code constituting libel, the existence of malice was

not present in the case. Subalternation The A proposition:

All mineral resources are owned by the State. (cruz vs denr, 1st statement) Has a corresponding I proposition:

Some mineral resources are owned by the State. THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION If A is true :

E is false I is true O false If E is true: A is false I is false O is true

If A is false : E are undetermined I are undetermined O is true If E is false: I is true A are undetermined O are undetermined

B. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM- CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument that has exactly two premises and contains only categoricalstatements. A categorical statement is a statement that asserts that either a part of, or the whole of, one set ofobjects -- the set identified by the subject term in the sentence expressing that statement -- either is includedin, or is excluded from, another set -- the set identified by the predicate term in that sentence.STANDARD FORM OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

For a categorical statement to be in standard-form, the sentence expressing that statement must beginwith the quantifier "all," "no," or "some." It must then present the subject term -- the term designating the setof objects the statement is about -- followed by the copula -- either "are" or "are not" -- followed, finally, bythe predicate term. So, for a categorical statement to be in standard-form, the sentence that expresses it musthave precisely the following structure:

Quantifier + Subject Term + Copula + Predicate TermExamples:(PEOPLEvs. MARIVIC GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004)AllBattered Woman Syndromearea form of self-defence. Q S C P ( STONEHILL vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 )Allsearch warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court arenull andQ S C Pvoid.

A standard-form categorical syllogism is one that meets the following fourconditions:1. All three statements are standard-form categorical propositions.

Page 11: legal technique and logic

2. The two occurrences of each term are identical.3. Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument.4. The major premise is listed fi rst, the minor premise second, and the conclusion

last.The first condition requires that each statement have a proper quantifier, subjectterm, copula, and predicate term. The second condition is clear. The third

rules outthe possibility of equivocation. For example, if a syllogism containing the word “men”used that term in the sense of human beings in one statement and in the sense of malehuman beings in another statement, the syllogism would really contain more thanthree terms and would therefore not be in standard form. Finally, the fourth conditionmerely requires that the three statements be listed in the right order.THREE CATEGORICAL TERMS

A standard categorical syllogism is a syllogism that consists of three categorical sentences, in which there are three terms, and each term appears exactly twice.

The three terms in a standard categorical syllogism are the major, the minor and the middle terms. The major term is the predicate term of the conclusion. The minor term is the subject term of the conclusion. The middle term is the term that appears twice in the premises.Examples:( WHITE LIGHT vs.CITY OF MANILA,G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009 )

1. All ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement are unconstitutional and void.2. All Manila City Ordinance Numbered 7774 are ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement.

3. All Manila City Ordinance Numbered 7774 are unconstitutional and void.4. Major Term: unconstitutional and void

Minor Term: Manila City Ordinance numbered 7774Middle Term: ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement.

( VALENTIN L. LEGASPI vs.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, G.R. No. L-72119 May 29, 1987 )

1. All Filipino citizens are people with fundamental right to information on matters of public concern.2. All men named ValentinLegaspi are Filipino Citizen.

3. All men named ValentinLegaspi are people with fundamental right to information on matters of public concern.

Major Term: people with fundamental right to information on matters of public concernMinor Term: men named ValentinLegaspiMiddle Term: Filipino citizensMAJOR AND MINOR PREMISES

A categorical syllogism is presented in standard form when its statements are arranged in the order of the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion. Here the major premise is the premise that contains the major term, and the minor premise is the premise that contains the minor term.Examples:( RaulEbralinagvs Division Superintendent of Schools, GR No. 95770, March 1, 1993 )

1. All acts of saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge are acts of worshipping idols. – MAJOR PREMISE2. No Jehovah’s Witnesses are worshipping idols.– MINOR PREMISE

3. No Jehovah’s Witnesses are saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge. –CONCLUSIO

THE FORMAL NATURE OF SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENTSThe mood and figure of a syllogism uniquely determine its form, and the form of an argument, from the viewpoint of logic, is its most important aspect.

The validity or invalidity of a syllogism depends exclusively on its form, completely independent of its content.The validity of a categorical syllogism is determined entirely by its form. As it turns out, exactly 15 of the 256 forms are valid.

MOODThe mood of a categorical syllogism consists of the letter names of the propositions that make it up. For example, if the major premise is an A proposition,

the minor premise an O proposition, and the conclusion an E proposition, the mood is AOE. To determine the mood of a categorical syllogism, one must first put the syllogism into standard form; the letter name of the statements may then be noted to the side of each. The mood of the syllogism is then designated by the order of these letters, reading the letter for the major premise first, the letter for the minor premise second, and the letter for the conclusion last.

There are exactly four standard-form categorical statements, each of which is identified with acapitalized vowel of the alphabet. They are:A: All S are P.E: No S are P. I: Some S are P. O: Some S are not P.

Examples:( Cruz vs. DENR Secretary and La BugalB’laan, GR No. 127882, December 1, 2004 )A: All mineral resources are things owned by the state.E: No exploration, development and utilization (EDU) of natural resources are under thefull control and supervision of a foreign state.I: Some small-scale utilization of natural resources are allowed by law in favour of Filipino citizens.O:Some natural resources are notalienated by the State.FIGURE

The figure of a categorical syllogism is determined by the location of the two occurrences of the middle term in the premises. Four different arrangements are possible. If we let S represent the subject of the conclusion (minor term), P the predicate of the conclusion (major term), and M the middle term, and leave out the quantifiers and copulas, the four possible arrangements may be illustrated as follows:

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4M P PM M P P MS M S M M S M SS P S P S P S P

Page 12: legal technique and logic

Once the mood and figure of a syllogism is known, the validity of the syllogism canbe determined by checking the mood and figure against a list of valid syllogistic forms.To do this, first adopt the Boolean standpoint and see if the syllogism’s form appearsin the following table of unconditionally valid forms. If it does, the syllogism is validfrom the Boolean standpoint. In other words, it is valid regardless of whether its termsdenote actually existing things.

UNCONDITIONALLYVALIDFORMS

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

AAA EAE AIIEIO

EAE AEE EIOAOO

IAI AII OAO

EIO

AEE IAI EIO

Examples:( People vs. Genosa, GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004 )Figure 1. EIO-1

1. No wife suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.2. Some women are wives suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”3. Some women are not incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.

Figure 2. EIO-21. No wife suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.2. Some wives are incurring criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.3. Some wives are not suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”

Figure 3. EIO-3

1. No woman suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.2. Some women suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome”areFilipino wives.3. Some Filipino wives are not incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.

Figure 4. EIO-41. No wife suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is a woman, who incurs criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.2. Some women, who incur criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband are Filipino wives.3. Some Filipino wives are not suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”

VENN DIAGRAMSVenn diagrams provide the most intuitively evident and, in the long run, easiest toremember technique for testing the validity of categorical syllogisms.The

technique isbasically an extension of the one developed to represent the informationalcontent of categorical propositions. Because syllogisms contain three terms, whereaspropositions contain only two, the application of Venn diagrams to syllogisms requiresthree overlapping circles.

These circles should be drawn so that seven areas are clearly distinguishablewithinthe diagram. The second step is to label the circles, one for each term. The preciseorder of the labelling is not critical, but we will adopt the convention of always assigningthe lower-left circle to the subject of the conclusion, the lower-right circle to thepredicate of the conclusion, and the top circle to the middle term. This convention iseasy to remember because it conforms to the arrangement of the terms in a standardformsyllogism: The subject of the conclusion is on the upperleft , the predicate of theconclusion is on the upper right, and the middle term is in the premises, bellow theconclusion.

The test procedure consists of transferring the information content of thepremisesto the diagram and then inspecting the diagram to see whether it necessarily impliesthe truth of the conclusion. If the information in the diagram does do this, the argumentis valid; otherwise it is invalid.VENN DIAGRAM RULES AND TIPS

The basic rules are the same as in categorical propositions. If a region is empty, then we shade it,and if a region is non-empty, then we put an “X” in it.The use of Venn diagrams to evaluate syllogisms usually requires a little practiceatfirst. Perhaps the best way of learning the technique is through

illustrative examples,but a few pointers are needed first:1. Marks (shading or placing an X) are entered only for the premises. No marksaremade for the conclusion.2. If the argument contains one universal premise, this premise should beenteredfirst in the diagram. If there are two universal premises, either one can

be done first.3. When entering the information contained in a premise, one should concentrateon the circles corresponding to the two terms in the statement. While

the thirdcircle cannot be ignored altogether, it should be given only minimal attention.4. When inspecting a completed diagram to see whether it supports a particularconclusion, one should remember that particular statements assert two

things.“Some S are P” means “At least one S exists and that S is a P”; “Some S are not P”means “At least one S exists and that S is not a P.”5. When shading an area, one must be careful to shade all of the area inquestion.

6. The area where an X goes is always initially divided into two parts. If one oftheseparts has already been shaded, the X goes in the unshaded part. Examples:

If one of the two parts is not shaded, the X goes on the line separating the twoparts. Examples:

Page 13: legal technique and logic

This means that the X may be in either (or both) of the two areas—but it is notknown which one.7. An X should never be placed in such a way that it dangles outside of thediagram,and it should never be placed on the intersection of two lines.

Examples:( HARRY S. STONEHILL vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 )

1. No search warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court are constitutional and valid.2. All search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill are constitutional and valid.3. No search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill arecontravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court.

Mood-Figure: EAE-2

The first step is to diagram the major premise, using the circles representing M (constitutional and valid) and P (contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court). So we shade out the area of overlap between M and P:

The second step is to add the minor premise to our diagram, using the circles representing S (search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill) and M. Since this is an A proposition, we shade out the region of S outside M.

The final step is to examine the completed diagram of the premises and determine whether it contains the information asserted by the conclusion. The conclusion asserts that no S is P. Thus it requires that the overlap between S and P be shaded out, and the premises taken together do shade out that region. So the syllogism is VALID.( People vs. Genosa, GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004 )

1. No wife suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.2. Some wives are incurring criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.3. Some wives are not suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”

Mood-Figure:EAE-2

First we diagram the major premise.

Second we diagram the minor premise.

Notice that we diagrammed the major premise first. This is not required logically, but whenever there is a particular and a universal premise, it is best to diagram the universal one first. By diagramming the universal premise first, we have shaded out one of the sub regions, so now we know that the X for the other premise must go outside the P circle. And that's useful information; it means that at least one S is not P. Since that is what the conclusion asserts, the argument is VALID.

If a syllogism is invalid, a Venn diagram will reveal that fact in one of two ways. The combined diagram for the premises will either fail to shade out an area excluded by the conclusion, or it will fail to put an X where the conclusion requires one.

( HARRY S. STONEHILL vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 )

1. No search warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court are constitutional and valid.2. All search warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Courtare null and void.3. Somenull and void search warrants are not constitutional and valid.

Mood-Figure:EAO-3First we diagram the major premise.

Second we diagram the minor premise.

Notice that it does not contains the information asserted by the conclusion. The conclusion asserts that some S are not P. Thus it requires that there is an X between S and M, but there is none so the syllogism is INVALID.

( RaulEbralinagvs Division Superintendent of Schools, GR No. 95770, March 1, 1993 )

1. No Jehovah’s Witness believer is a man who salutes the flag, sings the national anthem, and recites the patriotic pledge.2. Some men who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge are not foreigner.3. Some foreigners are not Jehovah’s witness believers.

There should be an“X” here to match the conclusion.

Page 14: legal technique and logic

Mood-Figure:EOO-4First we diagram the major premise.

Second we diagram the minor premise.

Notice again that it does notcontains the information asserted by the conclusion. The conclusion asserts that some S are not P. Thus it requires that there is an X inside S, but there is none so the syllogism is INVALID.

SIX RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

1. A valid standard-form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument.The necessity of having only three terms follows from the very nature of a categorical syllogism, in which a minor (t) and a major (T) term are

united or separated through the intermediary of a third term, the middle term (M).The necessity of having three terms arranged in this way in three propositions also follows from the very nature of a categorical syllogism. Two

propositions (the premises) are required for the middle term to fulfill its function of uniting or separating the minor and major terms and a third proposition (the conclusion) is required to express the union or separation of the minor and major terms.Example:

( HARRY S. STONEHILL vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 ). 1. All search warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court are null and void.

2. All search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill are searches that do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be seized.3. All search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill are null and void.FALLACY:Fallacy Of Four Terms

2. In a valid standard form categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed at least once.The reason for this rule is that when the middle term is particular in both premises it might stand for a different portion of its extension in each

occurrence and thus be equivalent to two terms, and therefore fail to fulfil its function of uniting or separating the minor and major terms.Example:

( People vs. Genosa, GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004 1. All victims of “Battered Woman Syndrome” are justified from criminal liabilities.2. All people who are defending the person or rights of a stranger are justified from criminal liabilities.3. All people who are defending the person or rights of a stranger are victims of “Battered Woman Syndrome.”

FALLACY:Undistributed Middle

3. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in a premise.The reason for this rule is that we may not conclude about all the inferiors of a term if the premises have given us information about only some

of them. The conclusion is an effect of the premises and must therefore be contained in them implicitly; but all are not necessarily contained in some—at least not by virtue of the form of argumentation alone.Example:

( RaulEbralinagvs Division Superintendent of Schools, GR No. 95770, March 1, 1993 )1. All Jehovah’s witnesses areliving people.2. Some Filipino citizens are not Jehovah’s witnesses. 3. Some Filipino citizens are not living people.

FALLACY:Illicit Major( RaulEbralinagvs Division Superintendent of Schools, GR No. 95770, March 1, 1993 )

1. All Jehovah’s witnesses are people who do not worship idols.2. All people who do not worship idols are religious people. 3. All religious people are Jehovah’s witnesses.

FALLACY:Illicit Minor4. In a categorical syllogism, two negative premises are not allowed. To fulfill its function of uniting or separating the minor and the major term, the middle

term must itself be united with at least one of them. But if both premises are negative, the middle term is denied of each of the extremes and we learn nothing about the relationship of the extremes towards one another. Example:

( People vs. Genosa, GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004 )1. No person suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.2. No husband isa person suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”3. No husband is incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.

FALLACY:Exclusive Premises

5. A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise.

The reason for this rule is that the affirmative premise unites the middle term with one of the extremes (that is, with either the minor or the major term) and the negative premise separates the middle term from the other extreme. Two things, of which the one is identical with a third thing and

There should be an “X” here, to conform with the conclusion.

Page 15: legal technique and logic

the other is different from that same third thing, cannot be identical with one another. Hence, if a syllogism with a negative premise concludes at all, it must conclude negatively.

Example:( White Light Vs. City Of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009 )

1. All ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement are unconstitutional and void.2. All Manila City Ordinance Numbered 7774 are ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement.3. No Manila City Ordinance Numbered 7774 is unconstitutional and void.

FALLACY:Drawing A Negative Conclusion From Affirmative Premises.

6. If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.Example:

( White Light Vs. City Of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009 )1. All ordinances that protect the right to privacy and the freedom of movement are constitutional and valid.2. All Manila City Ordinance are ordinances that protect the right to privacy and the freedom of movement.3. Some Manila City Ordinance areconstitutional and valid.

FALLACY:Existential Fallacy.Ordinary Language Arguments

What are Ordinary Language Arguments? Ordinary Language Arguments are philosophical arguments that see traditional philosophical problems as rooted in misunderstandings philosophers

develop by distorting or forgetting what words actually mean in everyday use. As presented by Norman Malcolm in 1942, the ‘Ordinary Language Argument’ is an argument to the conclusion that “the ordinary uses of language are

correct uses of language.” In order to understand Arguments in Ordinary Language, one must understand the distinction between the phrases “the use of ordinary language” and

“the ordinary use of language.” Ordinary Language philosophers are more interested in the latter, not the former. (Ryle, 1953) The term “ordinary use of language” has come to mean that the ordinary use of language is to communicate. The most essential feature of this view about

language use is that people should conceive of terms and expressions (or any bearer of linguistic meaning) as kinds of tools, which have various uses in the general purpose of saying things.

However, one must understand that mere utterance in a context alone does not suffice to count as having used a sentence to say something. Remember that not all utterances count as having said something.

In order to count as having said something, to have actually succeeded in saying something, is to have used a sentence to express something meaningfully. However, raising a meaningful or meaningless distinction is always dangerous unless one has very explicit criteria to distinguish. This is because there might always be a conflict between two philosophers as to what is actually meaningful or meaningless.

It was Austin (1955) who first made a distinction between mere utterance, or locution, and saying something in that utterance, or illocution. Austin also provided the beginnings of the uses of expressions, which include the many kinds of saying something such as describing, referring, questioning, demanding, promising, asserting, declaring, proposing, naming, requesting, informing, etc.

Note that merely thinking that one has meant or said something successfully will not make it so. People reasoning in ordinary language rarely express their arguments in the restricted patterns allowed in categorical logic. The following are examples of Arguments in Ordinary Language: General warrants are not constitutional because they do not meet the requirements for valid warrants, and the valid warrants do. (Stonehill vs. Diokno,

G.R. No. L-19950, 19 June 1967) “Short-time” promotions in hotels are prohibited because they lead to immoral acts and traditional hotel promotions don’t. (White Light vs. City of

Manila, G.R. No. 122846, 20 January 2009) Women who suffer from Battered Women Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability because they acted in self-defense, unlike the women

who do not act in self-defense. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004) A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man. A battered woman is a woman

who has suffered through at least two cycles of violence. Marivic Genosa has suffered through two cycles of violence , therefore, Marivic Genosa is a battered woman. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004)

Valentin Legaspi is a Filipino citizen and since citizens have a right to information, Valentin Legaspi should be accorded that right. (Valentin Legaspi vs Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119, 29 May 1987)

Reducing Terms in a Syllogistic Argument Why is there a need to Reduce the Terms? There is a need to reduce the terms in a syllogistic argument and transform them into standard-form categorical syllogisms before they can be tested. How to Reduce the Terms: First, the argument must be set up in standard form. The first sub-step is to find the conclusion. The conclusion can occur anywhere in a passage, although most often, it is the first or last sentence. The conclusion is often the “topic” sentence of the

paragraph. Example: (this is the Ordinary Language Argument) General warrants are not constitutional because they do not meet the standards for validity, and the constitutional warrants do. Topic sentence (Conclusion): General warrants are not constitutional. Note: If you cannot easily determine the conclusion from the use of the common premise and the conclusion indicator words (such as thus, therefore,

consequently, hence, so, it follows that, proves that, indicates that), then the conclusion can be found to answer the question you ask of the passage: “What’s the point?” or “What are you (i.e. the author of the passage) trying to prove?”

The second sub-step is to reduce the classes to three in number, and place the major premise first and the minor premise second so that the argument is transformed into standard order.

Example: Major Premise: General warrants do not meet the standards for validity. Minor Premise: Constitutional Warrants meet the standards for validity. Conclusion: General warrants are unconstitutional. Finally, each proposition in the argument is translated into the standard form and order before it is tested.

Page 16: legal technique and logic

Other Examples: 1. People vs. Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004 Ordinary Language Argument: A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man. A

battered woman is a woman who has suffered through at least two cycles of violence. Marivic Genosa has suffered through two cycles of violence , therefore, Marivic Genosa is a battered woman.

Step One: Find the conclusion. Conclusion: Marivic Genosa is a battered woman. Step Two: Identify the major and minor premises. Major Premise: A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man and who has

suffered through at least two cycles of violence. Minor Premise: Marivic Genosa has been repeatedly subjected to forceful physical and psychological behavior by a man. Step Three: Arrange into standard-form. Major Premise: A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man and who has

suffered through at least two cycles of violence. Minor Premise: Marivic Genosa has been repeatedly subjected to forceful physical and psychological behavior by a man. Conclusion: Marivic Genosa is a battered woman. 2. Valentin Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119 Ordinary Language Argument: The fundamental right of the people to be informed in matters of public concern can be invoked by the members of the

Philippine citizenry and since Valentin Legaspi is a Filipino citizen, he should also be accorded that right. Step One: Find the Conclusion. Conclusion: Valentin Legaspi should be accorded the fundamental right to be informed in matters of public concern. Step Two: Identify the major and minor premises. Major Premise: The fundamental right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern should be accorded to the members of the Philippine

citizenry. Minor Premise: Valentin Legaspi is a member of the Philippine citizenry. Step Three: Arrange into standard form. Major Premise: The fundamental right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern should be accorded to the members of the Philippine

citizenry. Minor Premise: Valentin Legaspi is a member of the Philippine citizenry. Conclusion: Valentin Legaspi should be accorded the fundamental right to be informed in matters of public concern. Note: A syllogism is ready to be tested with Venn diagrams (in testable standard form) only if it meets the following requirements: (1) Each statement in the argument is in Categorical Standard Form. (2) Exactly three [3] class terms appear in the argument. (3) Each of the three class terms appear twice. (4) The argument is in standard argument format. Translating Categorical Propositions to Standard Form Why is there a need to learn how to translate Categorical Propositions into standard form? As you know, people do not talk in standard categorical form for reasoning in everyday life. Categorical form is much to restricted and stilted for writing

and arguing in effective discourse. There is a need to develop skills of logical translation to standard form categorical propositions in order to minimize errors in evaluating syllogistic arguments.

Very often, translation into standard form reveals fallacies of equivocation and fallacies of amphiboly in the original text. Equivocation – “to call by the same name;” is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or

sense by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. It generally occurs with polysemic words, that is, words with multiple meanings. Amphiboly – a fallacy that relies on an ambiguous word or grammatical structure to confuse or mislead an audience. More broadly, amphiboly may refer

to a fallacy that results from a faulty sentence structure of any kind. Translation Rules of Thumb: 1. The subject and predicate terms must be the names of classes. a. If the predicate term is a descriptive phrase, make it a substantive one. (i.e. noun phrase) b. The translation must not significantly alter the original meaning of the sentence. 2. Categorical propositions must have a form of the verb “to be” as the copula in the present tense. 3. The quality and quantity indicators are set up from the meaning of the sentences. a. Quantity Indicators – “All,” “No,” “Some.” b. Quality Indicators – “No,” “Are,” “Are not.” 4. The word order is rearranged according to the sense of the original sentence. - This rule requires special care – in some cases, it may well be the most difficult rule to follow. - On occasion, we may need to divide one sentence into two or more propositions. Examples: 1. Cruz vs DENR Secretary and La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, INC., G.R. No. 127882 January 27, 2004 Declared void were the provisions of the the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and

WMC Philippines, Inc. translates to All the provisions of the the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and WMC Philippines,

Inc. were declared void. 2. Harry Stonehill vs. Jose Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, 19 June 1967 General warrants are invalid and unconstitutional. translates to All general warrants are invalid and unconstitutional warrants. Uniform Translation In order to achieve the uniform translation of all three propositions contained in a categorical syllogism, it is sometimes useful to modify each of the terms

employed in an ordinary-language argument by stating it in terms of a general domain or parameter. The goal here, as always, is faithfully to represent the intended meaning of each of the offered propositions, while at the same time bringing it into

conformity with the others, making it possible to restate the whole as a standard-form syllogism. The key to the procedure is to think of an appropriate parameter by relation to which each of the three categorical terms can be defined.

Page 17: legal technique and logic

Appropriate Parameter – any subject which is found on all the categorical statements. Example: All hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments that have short-time admission and rates are places included in the

Ordinance. All hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments that are found within the Ermita-Malate area that have short-time admission

and rates, are included in the Ordinance. Therefore, all hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments within the Ermita-Malate area, where there are short-time

admission and rates, are subject to the Ordinance. (White Light vs. City of Manila, G.R. 122846) The parameter here would be: All hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments. Enthymemes An “enthymeme” is an argument in which one proposition is suppressed – i.e. it’s missing for one reason or another. Also called a rhetorical syllogism, this technique employs subtle art of persuasion to engage one’s emotions, reasoning, and morals by virtue of rhetoric. An enthymeme is an informally stated reasoning that deliberately omits one part of the deduction – the premise or the conclusion – and is often based on

probabilities, examples, signs, or indications. A. In some cases, the missing proposition is not stated because it is obvious. Examples: a. You are a battered woman, you are exempted from civil and criminal liability. The missing premise is, “All battered women who incur civil and criminal

liability are exempted from it.” b. Citizens have the fundamental right to information on matters of public concern. You are a citizen. The missing premise is: “You have a fundamental right to information on matters of public concern.” c. You were issued a general warrant. General warrants are unconstitutional and have no force and effect. The missing premise is: “The warrant issued to you is unconstitutional and has no force and effect.” B. In other cases, if the missing proposition were present, the argument might lose rhetorical force. Examples: a. There were 6,327,952 voters who signed the petition. Those who signed the petition wanted to amend the Constitution. The 6,327,952 who signed the

petition wanted to amend the constitution. b. There was an Ordinance prohibiting any “short-time” promotions or schemes in hotels, motels, pension houses, inns, or lodging houses within the City

of Manila because these promotions or schemes were thought to be promoting immorality. c. Marivic Genosa killed her husband. Marivic Genosa was suffering from Battered Women Syndrome. Marivic Genosa killed her husband because she was

suffering from Battered Women Syndrome. C. Occasionally, the proposition is suppressed in order to conceal the unsoundness or invalidity of the argument. Examples: a. All hotels with “short-time” rates are considered immoral, so all hotels within the Ermita-Malate area are immoral. The missing premise would be the false premise, “All hotels within the Ermita-Malate area are hotels with “short-time rates.” NOTE: Many accounts define an enthymeme as an argument in which a premise is missing. Nevertheless, some enthymemes omit the conclusion for

rhetorical effect. In addition, in enthymemes, remember to always supply the missing premise because you cannot test for the validity of an argument if there is a missing

premise. A very important skill in logic is determining whether or not an argument has hidden assumptions. Other Examples of Enthymemes: Filipino citizens need to take an active part in cleaning up the environment. You are a Filipino citizen. Missing Premise: “You need to take an active part in cleaning up the environment.” Only members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are excused from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge. You are not a

member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Missing Premise: “You are not excused from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge.” There were only 6, 327, 952 registered voters who signed the petition and were in favor of amending the Constitution. I was not one of those 6, 327, 952

voters who signed. Missing Premise: “I did not sign the petition and I was not in favour of amending the Constitution.” Steps in Finding the Missing Premise in Enthymemes: 1. Be sure that there really is a missing proposition. 2. Identify the conclusion first. It is rarely left out. 3. Put it into logical form. 4. Identify the missing premise or conclusion. 5. If there is an argument, deduce the common (minor) term. a. All pronouns should be converted to nouns. b. Synonyms should be changed to one word. c. Change word order if necessary. (NOTE: Changing of the word order should not affect the meaning of the sentence.) d. Reword possessives as independent nouns. 6. Once the two non-hidden propositions are written out and the common term is found, find the missing premise. The missing premise can most likely be deduced from both the non-hidden propositions. Sorites Sorites is a pattern of ordinary language argumentation which involves several categorical syllogisms linked together. The conclusion of one syllogism

serves as one of the premises for another syllogism, whose conclusion may serve as one of the premises for another, and so on. In any such case, of course, the whole procedure will comprise a valid inference so long as each of the connected syllogisms is itself valid.

Examples: 1) Valentin Legaspi vs. CSC, G.R. No. 72119, 19 May 1987 a. Valentin Legaspi is a citizen. b. Citizens comprise the general public. c. The general public possesses the right to information on matters of public concern. d. Valentin Legaspi possesses the right to information on matters of public concern. 2) Harry Stonehill vs. Jose Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, 19 June 1967 a. Harry Stonehill was issued a general warrant. b. General warrants are unconstitutional warrants.

Page 18: legal technique and logic

c. Unconstitutional warrants have no force and effect. d. Harry Stonehill’s warrant has no force and effect. 3) People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004 a. Marivic Genosa killed her husband. b. The killing of one’s spouse is parricide. c. Parricide is punishable by death. d. Marivic Genosa’s act should be punishable by death. Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms Disjunctive Syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises. It is also a valid rule of inference. The basic form of the disjunctive syllogism is: Either A is true or B is true. (A exclusive or B) Thus, if A is true, B is false. If A is false, then B is true. A and B cannot both be true or false at the same time. Major Premise – the major premise is given in the form of choice between alternatives, with the assumption that one out of two or more alternative

choices is right and that the rest are wrong. This may appear as a single sentence. Minor Premise – the minor premise either selects or rejects alternatives, thus leading to the conlusion. Conclusion – the conclusion may be spoken, although often it is not, as it is intended that the target of the major premise concludes this by his or herself. Examples: 1. Either the general warrants are constitutional or unconstitutional. The general warrants are unconstitutional. Therefore, the general warrants are not constitutional. 2. Either Battered Women Syndrome is a valid defense or invalid defense. Battered Women Syndrome is not an invalid defense. Therefore, Battered Women Syndrome is a valid defense. 3. Either the petition was valid or it was wanting in requirements. The petition was not valid. Therefore, the petition was wanting in requirements. Hypothetical Syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. In propositional logic,

hypothetical syllogism is a name of a valid rule of inference called the chain argument rule. They are short, two-premise deductive arguments, in which at least one of the premises is a conditional, the antecedent or consequent of which also

appears in the other premise. “Pure” Hypothetical Syllogism In this type of hypothetical syllogisms, both of the premises, as well as the conclusion are conditionals. For such a conditional to be valid, the antecedent of

one premise must match the consequent of another. What one may validly conclude then is a conditional containing the remaining antecedent as the antecedent and the remaining consequent as the

consequent. Simply think of the “middle term” – the proposition in common between the two premises – as being cancelled out. Symbolic Representation: If P, then Q. If P, then not R. If Q, then R. If not R, then not Q. (So) if P, then R. (So) if P, then not Q. Other Example: If religious freedom is a fundamental right, then it is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights. Religious freedom is a fundamental right. Therefore, religious freedom is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights. The Dilemma The Dilemma is a syllogism that is both conditional and disjunctive. The major premise is a compound conditional proposition consisting of two or more

simple conditional propositions connected by the word “and” or its equivalent. The minor premise is a disjunctive proposition that alternatively posits the antecedent (constructive dilemma) each of the simple conditional propositions. Simple Constructive Dilemma – the conditional premise infers the same consequent from all the antecedents presented in the disjunctive proposition.

Hence, if any antecedents are true, then the consequents must be true. Example: If a student does not sing the national anthem, He is subject to expulsion. If a student does not salute the flag, He is also subject to expulsion. Either the student does not salute the flag or does not sing the national anthem. Therefore in any case he is subject to expulsion. Complex Constructive Dilemma - the conditional premise infers a different consequent from each of the antecedents presented in the disjunctive

proposition. If any of the antecedents are true, its consequent is likewise true. But since the antecedents are posited disjunctively and since a different consequent flows from each of them, the consequents must likewise be posited disjunctively.

Example: If the search warrant is valid, the seizure is justified and if the warrant is a general warrant then it is void. The warrant is either valid or general warrant. Therefore the search warrant is either justified or void. Refutation of a Dilemma Normally, the formal validity of a dilemmatic argument is not in question. Since a dilemma is a complex form of hypothetical-categorical syllogism, no new

principles are involved in determining the formal validity of dilemmatic arguments. In most cases, dilemmatic arguments are based on assumptions which are not correct.

There are three main ways of evading the conclusion of a dilemma. A. Escaping Between the Horns

Page 19: legal technique and logic

In this method, one refutes a given dilemma by showing that the alternatives given in the minor premise are not exhaustive and that there is a third alternative which goes in favor of the opponent. It is akin to looking for a loophole in both instances.

Another form of this method is a metaphor describing an alternative to two equally problematic choices when one finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. Instead of choosing either one of the two horns, one takes the bull by both horns and walks through the horns to a third, less problematic, alternative.

Examples: A. If Marivic Genosa kills her husband, she will be a murderer and be convicted for parricide. If Marivic Genosa does not kill her husband, she will continue

to be a battered woman. Solution: Marivic Genosa could “escape between the horns” by either leaving her husband or reporting him to the authorities. B. If a Jehovah’s Witness member salutes the flag, sings the national anthem, and recites the patriotic pledge, he or she will be reprimanded by the

parents. If a member of the Jehovah’s Witness does not salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, he or she will be expelled from the school.

Solution: The member of the Jehovah’s Witness could simply stand and stay still during the flag ceremony; that way, he or she will still be present in the ceremony without offending anyone.

B. Taking by the Horns In this method, one may point out that either one consequent or both consequents do not follow from their antecedents. Thus, the dilemma is wrong and

the conclusion cannot be established. Example: A. If we allow the “short-time” promos in hotels, we are encouraging the immoral acts of those who avail of it. If we do not allow the “short-time” promos,

then people will engage in more productive activities. Solution: The dilemma is wrong since the consequents do not follow the antecedents. One can “take the bull by the horns” by assailing the validity of the

proposed conclusions. C. Rebutting a Dilemma with a Counter Dilemma This method is one of the most ingenious ways by which a dilemma can be rebutted by another counter dilemma whose conclusion is opposed to the

original conclusion. Example: (generic example) Original Dilemma: If you say what is just, men will hate you; and if you say what is unjust, God will hate you; but you must say either one or the other;

therefore, you will be hated. Refutation: If you say what is just, God will love you; and if you say what is unjust, the men will love you; you must say either one or the other; therefore,

you will be loved.

Introduction to LogicThe Language of Symbolic Logic

Abstract: Conventions for translating ordinary language statements into symbolic notation are outlined.

I. We are going to set up an artificial "language" to avoid the difficulties of vagueness, equivocation, amphiboly, and confusion from emotive significance.

A. The first thing we are going to do is to learn the elements of this "new language."B. The second is to learn to translate ordinary language grammar into symbolic notation.C. The third thing is to consider arguments in this "new language."

II. Symbolic logic is by far the simplest kind of logic—it is a great time-saver in argumentation. Additionally, it helps prevent logical confusion when dealing with complex arguments..

A. The modern development of symbolic logic begin with George Boole in the 19th century.

B. Symbolic logic can be thought of as a simple and flexible shorthand:

1. Consider the symbols: 

[(p   q)   (q   r)]   (p   r).

2. This rule was well known to the Stoics, but they expressed it this way:

Page 20: legal technique and logic

"If, if the first then the second and if the second then the third, then, if the first then the third."

3. We will find that all of the essential manipulations in symbolic logic are about as complex and working with numbers made up on ones and zeros.

III. We begin with the simplest part of propositional logic: combining simple propositions into compound propositions and determining the truth value of the resulting compounds.

A. Propositions  can be thought of as the "atoms" of propositional logic.

1. Simple propositions are statements which cannot be broken down without a loss in meaning.

a. E.g., "John and Charles are brothers" cannot be broken down without a change in the meaning of the statement. Note the change in meaning from "John and Charles are brothers" to the mistranslation "John is a brother" and"Charles is a brother."

b. On the other hand, "John and Charles work diligently" can be broken down without a change in meaning: 

"John works diligently." "Charles works diligently." (It is assumed contextually that the meaning of the original statement is not that John and Charles work diligently together.)

Conventionally, capital letters (usually towards the beginning of the alphabet) may be used as abbreviations for propositions. 

E.g., "John and Charles are brothers" can be symbolized asB.

and "John and Charles work diligently" can be symbolized as the two statements:  J and C. 

The logical operator "and," as we will see, will be symbolized in these notes as "   "  although other symbols are often used elsewhere.

B. In addition to propositions, propositional logic uses operatorson propositions.

Propositions can be thought of like the sticks of a tinker-toy set.Operators are like the connecting blocks. Typical operators include "and," "or," and "implies."By adding more and more operators, we get more complex structures.

C. For evaluation of statements, there is only one condition to be learned: 

"In order to know the truth value of the proposition which results from applying an

Page 21: legal technique and logic

operator to propositions, all that need be known is the definition of the operator and the truth value of the propositions used."

 Introduction to LogicConjunction, Negation, and Disjunction

Abstract: The logical operations of conjunction, negation, and disjunction (alteration) are discussed with respect to their truth-table definitions. 

I. Truth Functionality: In order to know the truth value of the proposition which results from applying an operator to propositions, all that need be known is the definition of the operator and the truth value of the propositions used.

II. Conjunction is a truth-functional connective similar to "and" in English and is represented in symbolic logic with the dot "     ". 

A. Ordinary language definition of the dot: a connective forming compound propositions which are true only in the case when both of the propositions joined by it are true.

B. One way of expressing this definition is by way of truth tables. Consider the following examples.

1. "John left and Carol arrived" can be symbolized as " J   C " (i. e., (without the quotation marks), so long as we remember that the statement does not mean "Carol arrived after John left" which is a simple proposition).

2. There are four possible states of affairs which might have occurred with respect to John leaving and Carol arriving. These cases can be listed as follows in what is called a truth table.

p q p    q

T T TT F FF T FF F F

3.

C. Other ordinary language conjoiners besides "and" include some uses of "but," "although," "however "yet," and "nevertheless."

D. The dot as a truth functional connective doesn't do everything that the "and" does in English. It might be thought of in terms of a "minimum common logical meaning" to conjoined statements.

1. I.e., the temporal or causal sequence "Bill tripped and fell" cannot be transposed as "Bill fell and tripped." The clauses cannot be interchanged.

Page 22: legal technique and logic

2. Truth functional connectives are more limited than their corresponding English connectives: the whole meaning of the truth functional connective is given in its truth table.

3. So long as we do not expect more from truth-functional connectives, there should be few difficulties in translation.

E. Some characteristics of conjunction (in mathematical jargon) include:

1. associative—internal grouping is immaterial I. e.," [(p     q)     r] " is equivalent to " [p    (q     r)] ".

2. communicative—order is immaterial I. e., " p   q " is an equivalent expression to " q   p ".

3. idempotent—reduction of repetition I. e., " p   p " is an equivalent expression to " p ".

III. Which brings us to an overdue additional convention:  lower-case letters are variables, the small letters of the English alphabet usually beginning with letters after " p "(toward the end of the alphabet).

A. A variable is not a proposition, but is a "place holder" for any proposition.

B. Think of a variable as a "labeled box" which can be filled with any proposition, so long as we set up a correspondence between the "labeled box" and the variable.

C. E. g., just as "All S is P" is the form of statements like "All men are mortal" and "The whale is a mammal," " p   q " is the form of statements like "John left and Carol arrived" and " J   C " (which symbolizes the statement "John left and Carol arrived."

D. E. g., suppose Alice and Betty are in this room, but Charles is not. The form of the statement corresponding to each person being in the room  is 

[(p     q)     r]

and the statement "Alice is in this room and Betty is in this room, and Charles is  in this room" can, itself, be symbolized as

[(A     B)     C]

The truth of the compound expression is analyzed by substituting in the truth values corresponding to the facts of the case, viz., 

[(T     T)     F]

Page 23: legal technique and logic

so by the meaning of the "   " the compound statement resolves to being false by the following step-by-step analysis in accordance with the truth table for conjunction:

[(T     T)     F][( T )     F][ T     F]

F

IV. Disjunction (or as it is sometimes called, alternation) is a connective which forms compound propositions which are false only if both statements (disjuncts) are false.

A. The connective "or" in English is quite different from disjunction. "Or" in English has two quite distinctly different senses.

1. The exclusive sense of "or" is "Either A or B (but not both)" as in "You may go to the left or to the right." In Latin, the word is "aut."

2. The inclusive sense of "or" is "Either A or B {or both)." as om "John is at the library or John is studying." In Latin, the word is vel."

B. It is the second  sense that we use the "vel" or "wedge" symbol: "   "

C. The truth table definition of the wedge is

p q p      q

T T TT F TF T TF F F

D.

E. Consider the statement, "John is at the Library or he is Studying." If, in this example, John is not at the library and John is not studying, then the truth value of the complex statement is false:

F     F F

V. Another truth functional operator is negation:  the phrase "It is false that …" or "not" inserted in the appropriate place in a statement.

A. The phrase is usually represented by a minus sign " - " or a tilde "~"

B. For example, "It is not the case that Bill is a curious child" can be represented by "~B".

Page 24: legal technique and logic

C. The truth table for negation is as follows: 

p ~ p

T FF T

VI. The general principles that govern parentheses for grouping are as follows. 

A. A " ~ " standing in front of a letter negates only that proposition, while a " ~ " in front of an expression in parentheses negates the whole compound statement within those parentheses.

Note the difference between: ~ A     B and ~( A     B ).

B. Each occureence of a connective has associated with it a set of parentheses which indicate what it is connecting. 

Hence, ( A     B )   C is quite different from A    ( B   C )

E. g., let A and B be false, and let C be true. The resolution of the truth value of these expressions would be as follows.

( A     B )   C  ( F     F )     T

F     TT

A     ( B   C )F     ( F     T )

F     TF

Introduction to LogicConditional Statements and Material Implication

Abstract: The reasons for the conventions of material implication are outlined, and the resulting truth table for is vindicated. 

I. The word "implies" has several different meanings in English, and most of these senses of the word can be conveyed in the ordinary language connection of statements with "If … then …" In symbolic logic, implication is present for "If … then …" propositions which assert some logical or causal or other relationship.

A. Implication is a relation that holds for conditional statements—there are many types of conditionals: 

1. Logical:  E. g., "If all philosophers are thinkers and John is a philosopher, then John is a thinker."

2. Definitional:  E. g., "If Carol is anemic, then Carol has a low concentration of erythrocytes in her blood."

3. Causal:  E. g., "If you strike the match, it will light."

Page 25: legal technique and logic

4. Decisional: E. g., "If you donate to educational television, then the company you work for will match the amount."

B. Material implication is the weakest common meaning for all types of "If … then …" statements.

1. By convention the first part of the conditional is termed theantecedent (also less often called the "implicans" or the "protasis"), and the second part of the conditional is theconsequent (less often termed the "implicate" or "apodosis").

  E. g., in the conditional statement "If you study diligently, then you might see positive results," the antecedent is "You study diligently" and the consequent is "You might see positive results."

2. In general, the weakest common meaning is that (1) if the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement are true, then the conditional as a whole is true, but (2) if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, then the conditional as a whole is false.

3. Thus, we can display these values in the following truth table:

p q p q

1 T T T

2 T F F

3 F T ?

4 F F ?

4.

II. If we assume completeness for our truth functionality, then lines (3) and (4) of the truth table for "p   q" must have truth values unique to the substitution instances for  implication. Let's try out various combinations of truth values.

A. If the resultant truth values for "p   q" on lines (3) and (4) of the truth table, were both false, then this truth table would be the same truth table for conjunction (or  the dot "    "). Consequently,  these two lines cannot both result in false because conditionals mean something different from conjunctions.

B. If the resultant truth values were a T and a F respectively, for lines (3) and (4) of the truth table for "p   q", then the truth of the conditional would depend on the truth of the consequent regardless of the first statement. 

Page 26: legal technique and logic

However, "If p then q" does not mean "q whether or not p."

C. If the resultant truth values were respectively a F and a T for lines (3) and (4) of the truth table, then a similar objection would apply. This objection can be explained with the help of the following tentative truth table: 

p q p q

1 T T T

2 T F F

3 F T F?

4 F F T?

D.

Suppose we have the conditional statement, "If the match is struck, the match lights." By the above truth table, if we do not strike the match and the match lights, then the conditional would be false. But surely the match could light in many other ways than the method of striking.

I. e., The tentative truth table implies the match lights only in case the match is struck; we want to allow that the match could light in other ways.

E. The final suggestion for the truth table for  "     " for is this:

p q p q

1 T T T

2 T F F

3 F T T

4 F F T

F.

This interpretation we shall adopt even though it appears counterintuitive in some instances—as we shall see when we talk about the "paradoxes of material implication."

Page 27: legal technique and logic

III. The conditional expressed by the truth table for " p     q " is called material implication and may, for convenience, be called a fifth type of conditional.

A. So we have the following main kinds of conditionals: logical, definitional, causal, decisional, and material.

B. Note two points:

1. The material kind of implication is not the only relation of implication.

2. Material implication does not somehow stand for all the meanings of the "If … then … "

C. But we can say that it has a common partial meaning with all of the other kinds of conditional statements. 

IV. Another way of expressing the relation of material implication in in terms of the dot symbol:   ~ ( p      ~ q ).

A. That is, these expressions are equivalent: 

[  ~ ( p      ~ q ) ]     ( p     q )

whatever the substitution instances for p and for q are, the truth values of each compound will remain the same.

B. Another way of expressing this relations, is to say that this expression is a tautology—a statement form that has only true substitution instances.

C. We will express these ideas in terms of truth tables. But first, what  is a truth table and how it is constructed is the subject of the next tutorial

Introduction to LogicHow to Construct a Truth Table

Abstract: The general principles for the construction of truth tables are explained and illustrated.

I. How to construct the guide columns: 

A. Write out the number of variables (corresponding to the number of statements) in alphabetical order. 

B. The number of lines needed is 2n where n is the number of variables. (E. g., with three variables, 23 = 8).

C. Start in the right-hand column and alternate T's and F's until you run out of lines.

Page 28: legal technique and logic

D. Then move left to the next column and alternate pairs of T's andF's until you run out of lines.

E. Then continue to the next left-hand column and double the numbers of T's and F's until completed.

II. Example: construct a  truth table for p    ( q    r ) 

 

LineNo. ↓

I, Avariables

in alphabetical 

order ↓

III, AFirst lineall T→

p q r q    rp   (q   

r)

1 T T T T T

I, Bnumbe

r of lines = 2n

→III, D

half T'shalf F's

2 T T F T T3 T F T T T4 T F F F T5 F T T T T6 F T F T T7 F F T T T

8 F F F F F

III, B

lastlineall F

↑I, E

alternatedouble of previousT and F

↑I, D

alternatepairs ofT and F

↑I, C

alternateT and F

III. As check that the guide columns were done correctly:

A. The first horizonal line will be all T's.

B. The last horizonal line will be all F's.

C. The left-most column will be evenly divided; the first half all T's and the second half all F's.

FURTHER IMMEDIATE INFERENCES

Conversion

Interchange the subject (S) and the predicate (P) terms of the proposition.

Page 29: legal technique and logic

The premise or the original proposition is called the convertend; the conclusion is called the converse. Applies to E and I propositions only:

Proposition Convertend ConverseE (No S is P) No service contracts

which vest full control over natural resources to foreign companies are valid contracts

(No P is S) No valid contracts are service contracts which vest full control over natural resources to foreign companies

I (Some S is P) Some EDU activities are projects which require foreign technical and financial assistance

(Some P is S) Some projects which require foreign technical and financial assistance are EDU activities

La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc., et. Al. vs. Victor O. Ramos, Secretary, DENR, et. al., GR 127882, December 1, 2004

Valid with A propositions only by limitation (conversion by limitation) Conversion by limitation

a. interchange the subject and predicate terms and change the quantity of the proposition from universal to particular;

b. or get the subaltern (it being a valid proposition derived from the A proposition) of the convertend and convert it.

Convertend(All S is P)

Converse(Some P is S)

All FTAA contracts are documents approved by the president

Some documents approved by the president are FTAA contracts

Convertend(All S is P)

Subaltern(Some S is P)

Converse(Some P is S)

All FTAA contracts are documents approved by the president

Some FTAA contracts are documents approved by the president

Some documents approved by the president are FTAA contracts

La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc., et. Al. vs. Victor O. Ramos, Secretary, DENR, et. al., GR 127882, December 1, 2004

Not valid with O propositions.

Obversion

Change the quality of the proposition and replace the predicate term by its complement. The premise is called the obvertend, the conclusion, the obverse. Complement:

a. The collection of all things that do not belong to the original classb. The complement of the class S is non-S

Proposition Obvertend ObverseA (All S is P) All DECS directives are (No S is non-P) No DECS

Page 30: legal technique and logic

orders that should be followed by all schools

directives are non-orders that should be followed by all schools

E (No S is P) No symbols representing the state such as the national flag are religious icons

(All S is non-P) All symbols representing the state such as the national flag are non-religious icons

I (Some S is P) Some activities such as flag ceremonies are efforts to inculcate patriotism and nationalism

(Some S is not non-P) Some activities such as flag ceremonies are not non-efforts to inculcate patriotism and nationalism

O (Some S is not P) Some school administrators are not tolerant of defiance of government orders on account of religious beliefs

(Some S is non-P) Some school administrators are non-tolerant of defiance of government orders on account of religious beliefs

Roel Ebralinag, et.al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, GR 95770 and 95887, March 1, 1993

Contraposition

Replace its subject term by the complement of its predicate term and replace its predicate term by the complement of its subject term (or by obverting, converting, and obverting again the proposition).

The conclusion of this form of inference is called a contrapositive Applies to A and O propositions only:

Proposition Premise ContrapositiveA (All S is P) All government

agencies who had been ordered by the RTC to rehabilitate Manila bay are institutions which are primarily responsible for the bay’s degradation

(All non-P is non-S) All non-primarily responsible for the bay’s degradation are non-government agencies which had been ordered by the RTC to rehabilitate Manila Bay

O (Some S is not P) Some duties of government agencies are not ministerial duties

(Some non-P is not non-S) Some non-ministerial duties are not non-duties of government agencies

MMDA, et. al. vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Valid with E propositions only by limitation (contraposition by limitation) Contraposition by limitation – obvert, convert by limitation and obvert again

Premise(No S is P)

Obverse(All S is non-P)

Converse by limitation

(Some non-P is S)

Obverse(Some non-P is not

non-S)No government duty clearly and expressly indicated by law is a discretionary legal

All government duties clearly and expressly indicated by law are non-discretionary legal

Some non-discretionary legal mandates are government duties clearly and

Some non-discretionary legal mandates are not non-government duties clearly and

Page 31: legal technique and logic

mandate mandates expressly indicated by law

expressly indicated by law

MMDA, et. al. vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Not valid with I propositions

EXISTENTIAL IMPORT

A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is uttered to assert the existence of objects of some kind. A proposition has existential import if it is axiomatically true.

Some inferences derived from the traditional square of opposition become invalid if the existential import of a class were to be taken into account. If the subject class is empty, for instance, in contradictory propositions A and O, both are false. One proposition must be true in contradictories. Ergo, if both are false, it is no longer a contradictory. It’s the same story with the rest of the corresponding propositions in the square – if the subject class is empty, no valid inference may be drawn.

This may be cured by applying existential presupposition which quite simply is stipulating that a certain class does exist, even if it actually doesn’t, before drawing inferences. This however poses three problems: we will never be able to formulate the proposition that denies that a class has members, sometimes what we say does not suppose that there are members in the classes we are talking about and we often wish to reason without making any presuppositions about existence. Also propositions based on false assumptions are erroneous and are referred to as existential fallacies.

In light of the foregoing, it is inevitable that the square should be scrapped considering its existential pitfalls. We instead adopt George Boole’s schema of logic which retains some features of the square, but on the whole it is a completely different system.

Page 32: legal technique and logic

In Boolean logic, I and O propositions have existential import. A and O and E and I propositions are still contradictories. A and E propositions are generally considered to have no existential impor – if A and E propositions are empty, their subalterns I and O respectively are false. A and E however may still assume existential import provided they are expressed using a valid particular proposition and an empty universal proposition. A and E are no longer contraries and I and O cease to be subcontraries. Immediate inferences thru conversion, obversion and contraposition may still be made but not those which involve limitation namely conversion and contraposition by limitation.

SYMBOLISM AND DIAGRAMS FOR CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

S = 0 – class S has no members

S ≠ 0 – class S has members

SP – product or intersection of classes i.e. common part or membership of the classes

Representation for Categorical Propositions in Boolean Logic:

SP = 0: E proposition

a. No members of class S belong to Pb. No common members or the product of the classes is empty

SP ≠ 0: I proposition

a. At least one member of S is also a member of Pb. The product of the classes is not empty

SP = 0: A proposition

a. The product of the classes is empty

b. All S is P obverts to No S is non-P or symbolically: SP = 0

c. S = non-S or complement of S; P = non-P or complement of P

SP ≠ 0: O proposition

Page 33: legal technique and logic

S SP P

a. Some S is not P obverts to Some S is non-P or symbolically: SP ≠ 0

VENN DIAGRAM

S S S

S: S = 0: S ≠ 0:

S P

SP:

S P

A: SP = 0 E: SP = 0

Contradictories

I: SP ≠ 0 O: SP ≠ 0

X

Page 34: legal technique and logic

X

SP

SP : Part of the circle S that does not overlap with circle P

S P: Part of the circle P that does not overlap with circle S

SP: product of the two classes or circles

SP : All things that don’t belong to either circle S or circle P

Shading a section in the diagram would indicate that that particular section is empty. While placing an x mark at the center of a specific section would show that it has at least one member or is not empty.

All owners of hotels in manila are legitimate litigants by virtue of the overbreadth doctrine and third party standing.

White Light Corp., et. al. vs. City of Manila, GR 122846, January 20, 2009

S P

SP = 0

No petition for people’s initiative whose signatories have not seen the full text of the amendments is a valid means to amend the constitution.

Raul Lambino, et.al. vs. Comelec, GR 174153, October 25, 2006

S P

SP = 0

Some women, after suffering multiple cycles of violence at the hands of their partner, are liable of committing murder.

People vs. Genosa, 135981, January 15, 2004

Page 35: legal technique and logic

X

X

X

S P

SP ≠ 0

Some judges who test complaints for probable cause so that they may issue warrants are not so thorough in their examination.

Harry S. Stonehill, et. al. vs. Jose W. Diokno, et. al., GR L-19550, June 19, 1967

S P

SP ≠ 0

The following are the converses of the above propositions:

S P S P S P

A: PS = 0 E: PS = 0 I: PS ≠ 0

S P

O: PS ≠ 0

Historical Considerations.

A. After 2,000 years the standard treatment of fallacies remain much the same as the thirteen fallacies pointed out by Aristotle in hisSophistical Refutations.

Page 36: legal technique and logic

1. What is a sophist? (Note the word "philosophy" and "sophomore.") Originally, a sophist was a wise of learned person, one who engaged in the pursuit or communication of knowledge. Now, a sophist is one who makes use of fallacious arguments--a specious reasoner.

2. Some logicians, e.g., Bacon and Locke, dropped the treatment of informal fallacies because logic is concerned with correct reasoning only.

3. Yet, unless we are aware of some of the mistakes that are likely to be made, i.e., unless we know what to avoid, we cannot reason correctly.

B. No one is particularly satisfied with the traditional treatment of fallacies--it is too unsystematic. Nevertheless, there seems to be no way to give a systematic treatment of fallacies.

1. De Morgan writes in his Formal Logic (276): "There is no such thing as classification of the ways men arrive at error: it is much to be doubted whether there ever can be."

2, Joseph says in his Introduction to Logic (569): "Truth may have its norm, but error is infinite in its aberrations, and they cannot be digested in any classification."

3. There is no theory of fallacy except by negative definition.

II. Even though there is no standard treatment, fallacies in this course will be grouped as follows.

A. First, what is a fallacy? In general, it is some form of deceptive reasoning.

1. A fallacy, then, is an argument which seems to be valid, but is not really so.

2. Unfortunately, this is a psychological definition. What counts as something "deceptive"?

3. Fallacy: a type of mistake in argumentation that might appear to be correct, but which proves upon examination not to be so. (This definition is clearly inadequate, but we will use it for a working definition.)

B. Let us classify two basic types:

1. Informal Fallacy: those dependent upon language-- i.e., a fallacy that arises from the content of an argument (the what is said, not the how it is said).

2. Formal Fallacy: those outside the content of language--i.e., a fallacy that arises from an error in the form of an argument; it is (usually) independent of content.

Page 37: legal technique and logic

III. The following chart of fallacies, with some suggestive examples, is an indication of some of the terrain to be discussed.

Fallacies

________________|_____________

Informal Formal

______|______ ______|______

Relevance Presumption Syllogistic Symbolic

ad baculum Complex Question Exclusive PremissesAffirming the Consequent

IV. In our discussion of informal fallacies, we will also look at arguments which initially seem to be fallacious because they are drawn along the same lines, but are not not really so.

A. Once the fallacies are introduced, there is a tendency to see a fallacies in passages where there are just appeals and no arguments present. Unless an argument is present, no fallacy can occur.

B. Thus, before the labeling of "fallacy" is done with respect to a passage, one must be sure that an argument is being given. (An argument must have at least two statements: a premiss and a conclusion.) You will find many textbooks talk about appeals rather than arguments--a topic related to "disagreements in belief and attitude" discussed in Logic and Language and similar to "arguments and nonarguments" discussed in The Nature of Arguments.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:

Statement   p   is unproved.Not-p is true.

Statement   not-p   is unproved .p is true.

B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.

C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on doexist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.

II. Some typical ad ignorantiam fallacy examples follow.

In spite of all the talk, not a single flying saucer report has been authenticated. We may assume, therefore,

Page 38: legal technique and logic

there are not such things as flying saucers.

No one has objected to Lander's parking policies during the last month of classes, so I suppose those policies are very good.

Since the class has no questions concerning the topics discussed in class, the class is ready for a test.

Biology professor to skittish students in lab: There is no evidence that frogs actually feel pain; it is true they exhibit pain behavior, but as they have no consciousness, they feel no pain.

Johnson: It is impractical to send more men to the moon because the money spent for that project could be spent on helping the poor..

Hanson: It is not impractical.

Johnson: Why?

Hanson: Just try to prove that I wrong.

(Hanson is defending his claim by an ad ignorantiam, i.e., his claim is true, if Johnson cannot refute him.)

"The Soviet news agency Tass declared Saturday that the abominable snowman, thought by some to stalk the Himalayan Mountains, does not exist.

Quoting arguments by Vadim Ranov, a man described as a well-known Soviet explorer, Tass said that no remains--skull or individual bones--had ever been found.

Alleged yeti tracks spotted in the mountains are more likely to be those of other animals distorted by bright sunrays, Tass said.

Accounts by 'eye witnesses' are the fruit of their imagination,' the official news agency said." (New York Times)

(Be sure to note why this argument is not a case of the ad verecundiam fallacy.)

"Our universe, however, did begin with the primordial explosion, since we can obtain no information about events that occurred before it. The age of the universe, therefore, is the interval from the big bang to the present." (Scientific American)

III. The uses of the ad ignorantiam in rhetoric and persuasion are often similar to the technique of "raising doubts." E.g., suppose you wanted to convince a police officer not to give you a ticket by using this technique.

"I'm sure you know how unreliable radar detectors are. Why, I saw an a news program a tree was timed at 50 mph, and Florida, at one time, threw out such evidence in court. I certainly wasn't going that fast. Some other driver must have sent back that erroneous signal. You probably timed the car passing me which looked like mine."

IV. Non-fallacious uses of the ad ignorantiam: in science, the law courts, and some specific other situations,

Page 39: legal technique and logic

one must, for practical reasons, assume that something is false unless it is proved true and vice-versa.E.g., "the assumption of innocence until proved guilty" is a practical, not a logical, process.  Obviously, someone can be legally innocent, but actually guilty of a crime. 

A. In many instances, if a decision must be made and we cannot prove something in spite of serious attempts to do so, then we presuppose as a pragmatic consideration, without deductive proof,  that whatever that something is, is probably the case.

B. At one time scientists concluded that DNA would not crystallize because after extensive testing, there was no proof that it would. This conclusion is not fallacious even though now it is known that DNA will crystallize.

C. There is no fallacy in the following passage:

"Today we can be confident that a sample of uranium 238, no matter what its origin, will gradually change into lead, and that this transmutation will occur at a rate such that half of the uranium atoms will have become lead in 4.5 billion years. There is no reason to believe that the nature of rate of this process was any different in the very remote past, when the universe was new." Schramm,Scientific American (January, 1974), 67.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (argument from authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the recommendation or advice of an improper authority.

A. Occasionally, this argument is called the "argument from prestige" and is based on the belief that prestigious people cannot be wrong. In these cases, the fallacy is probably best termed the "snob appeal" variety of the ad populum.

B. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the ad verecundiamand the ad populum when the authority cited is a group with high status.

This example from a popular logic text can be identified as either an ad verecundiam or an ad populum:

"Those who say that astrology is not reliable are mistaken. The wisest men of history have all been interested in astrology, and kings and queens of all ages have guided the affairs of nations by it."1

C. The informal structure generally has the basic pattern:

Authority on subject x, L says accept statement p.

p is outside the

Page 40: legal technique and logic

scope of or not germane to the subject x.

p is true.

C. For example:

Linus Pauling as the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes, one for chemistry, the other for peace stated his taking of Vitamin C delayed the onset of cancer by twenty years.

(Winning a Nobel Prize in chemistry and for peace does not imply expertise in the medical science of the diagnosis and treatment of malignant neoplasms.)

Therefore, vitamin C is effective in the treatment of cancer.

E. Many advertising campaigns are built on this fallacy. Popular sports figures, musicians, or actors endorse products of which they have no special expertise and, in this context, this fact is offered as a mistaken reason we should use those products.

Even so, occasionally a movie star, for example, might also be an appropriate authority in another subject. For

Page 41: legal technique and logic

example, Ronald Regan can be relevantly quoted as a political authority or Paul Newman can be quoted as a race car driver. Their reasoning in those respective fields would not ordinarily be open to the charge of an ad verecundiam fallacy.

F. Note also that an ad verecundiam inductive argument (i.e., an argument whose conclusion is claimed to follow not with certainty but with probability) is not necessarily a fallacy even if the relevant or appropriate authority in the field is mistaken.

For example, in 1948, readers of Science News were invited to buy a fluffy dish towel made from 80 percent cotton and 20 percent asbestos from "Things of Science," an experiment of the month program provided by Science Service.1 Concluding that the towel would be safe and useful would not have been an ad verecundiam fallacy even though the authority in this case, theScience News program, was being relied upon. The authority was relevant but simply mistaken.

II. Examples of the ad verecundiam fallacy:

A. The brilliant William Jenkins, the recent Nobel Prize winner in physics, states uncategorically that the flu virus will be controlled in essentially all of its forms in the next two decades. The opinion of such a noted scientist cannot be disregarded.

B. The United States policy toward mainland China in the 1980's was surely mistaken because Shirley McLaine, the well-known actress, emphasized at the time she had grave misgivings about it.

III. Uses of the ad verecundiam.

A. Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, should have direct bearing on the argument at hand—especially if we have no better evidence to base a conclusion securer grounds.

B. To qualify as an authority, the individual must be generally recognized by peers in the same field by peers who either hold a similar view or recognize the cogency of the point of view being expresses. (Examine, for yourself, why this condition of citing what many authorities in a field believe is not an instance of the ad populumfallacy.)

IV. Non-fallacious examples of the ad verecundiam.

A. Former President Bush said that America would be much stronger if the people would return to traditional American values, and indeed he argues that we should.

B. Although the following passages are considered fallacies by a popular logic textbook, note why they are not fallacious.

1. "But can you doubt that air has weight when you have the clear testimony of Aristotle affirming that all the elements have weight including air, and excepting only fire?"

Page 42: legal technique and logic

(Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences)3

2. "In that melancholy book The Future of an Illusion, Dr. Freud, himself one of the last great theorists of the European capitalist class, has stated with simple clarity the impossibility of religious belief for the educated man of today."

(John Strachey, The Coming Struggle for Power)4

I. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

A. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personemargument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

B. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

II. The "tu quoque" or charging the locutor with "being just like the person" the locutor speaking about, is a narrower variety of this fallacy. In other words, rather than trying to disprove a remark about someone's character or circumstances, one accuses the locutor of having the same character or circumstances.

A. In cross examination or in debate, the point is often expressed as "My point might be bad, but yours is worse."

B. If the subject includes an assessment of behavior, the point can be put "So I do x [some specific action], but you do too."

III. Since the circumstantial variety of the ad hominem can be regarded as a special case of the abusive, the distinction between the abusive and the circumstantial is often ignored.

Informal Structure of  ad Hominem

Person L says argument A.Person   L 's circumstance or character is not satisfactory. Argument A is not a good argument.

IV.V. Examples of the ad hominem:

A prosecutor asks the judge to not admit the testimony of a burglar because burglars are not trustworthy.

Page 43: legal technique and logic

Francis Bacon's philosophy should be dismissed since Bacon was removed from his chancellorship for dishonesty.

Prof. Smith says to Prof. White, "You are much too hard on your students," and Prof. White replies, "But certainly you are not the one to say so. Just last week I heard several of your students complaining."

I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years in state government and is hardly an unbiased source.

VI. Uses of ad hominem considerations:

A. When examining literary or philosophical works, looking at the author's character or circumstances can sometimes provide insight into that person's ideas. In other words, ad hominemconsiderations can show motives and can sometimes provide explanation. However, these considerations do not demonstrate the truth or falsity of the ideas.

B. The character of a person is often relevant in consideration of the sincerity of views being offered and so is often relevant to pragmatic decision-making.

VII. Self-reference and ad hominem:

A. If a philosopher presents a "naturalistic view of knowledge," arguing that all knowledge is a function of the adjustment of an organism to its environment and at the same time pleads that his own knowledge is an exception to this generalization, then the ad hominem fallacy would occur. 

B. If William James were to claim that all philosophers were either tender-minded or tough-minded except for him with respect to his own variety of pragmatism, then an ad hominem appeal should not be ruled inadmissible against James..

I. Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

Page 44: legal technique and logic

A. "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)

Person L says statement p or argument A.Person L is in the elite. Statement p is true or argument A is good.

B.

C. "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true. Statement p is true.

D.

E. "appeal to emotion": the fallacy of using expressive andemotively laden language to arouse emotion in support of a conclusion.

Emotions such as enthusiasm, pride, anger, or disgust are used to express evidence for statement p Statement p is true.

F.

<="" li="">II. Many advertising slogans are based on this fallacy: Strictly speaking, one statement

considered by itself cannot be a fallacy because it's not an argument. Nevertheless, the import of these "catch-phrases" seems to be in some cases by conversational implicature an implicit argument. I.e., the statement can easily be reconstructed from its context into an implicit argument.

§ "Coffee is the think drink." ("London (AP) The coffee industry says it will try to convince youngsters that coffee is the ‘think drink’. … ‘We want to capture the youth market.’"[The Fredericksburg Virginia Free Lance-Star "Industry Promoting Coffee as ‘Think Drink’"

Page 45: legal technique and logic

(December 10, 1966), 82 No. 390, 10.])

§ "Join the Pepsi People Feelin' Free" (slogan early 1970s,)

§ "Join the Pepsi generation" (slogan mid-1980s)

§ "Sony. Ask anyone." (Sony trademark, 1970s)

A. Occasionally, it is difficult to make a distinction between thead verecundiam (appeal to authority) and the ad populum (appeal to the elite) fallacies.

B. The basis of the ad populum appeal is the assumption that large numbers of persons are more likely to be right than a given individual is likely to be right. Also, in light of peer pressure, many persons feel it's better to be normal than to go against the crowd. Moreover, our social desire to be approved by others often results in our joining the "bandwagon" of the probable winning side in a political contest.

III. The main problem with this fallacy is the mere fact that many people agree on something often does not imply that what they agree on is true; nevertheless, the fact that many people agree, can be relevant evidence for the truth in some instances, as shown below. The distinction is based on the nature of the relevance of the premisses to the conclusion.

IV. Examples of the ad populum:

"But officer, I don't deserve a ticket; everyone goes this speed. If I went any slower, I wouldn't be going with the stream of traffic."

It is well recognized by most persons that the present technological revolution has affected the ethical basis of the nation's institution of education. Since this belief is so widely held, there can be little doubt of its accuracy.

"Man could alleviate his misery by marriage. This close companionship enhances the joys of one and mitigated the sorrow of the other, and anyone knew God always provided for married people."

[Lee Emily Pearson, Elizabethans at Home, (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), 289.]

Page 46: legal technique and logic

"Shell was charged with misleading advertising in its Platformate advertisements. A Shell spokesman said: 'The same comment could be made about most good advertising of most products.'"

[Samm Sinclair Baker, The Permissible Lie (Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1968), 39.]

"To his dying day, Governor Marvin Mandel will never understand what was wrong in accepting more that $350,000 worth of gifts from wealthy friends who happened to engage in business ventures that benefited from his gubernatorial influence. The governor has lots of company … And to a man they have cried in bewilderment that ‘everybody does it,’ that politics survives on back scratching."

[Martha Angle and Robert Walters, "In Washington: The Public Isn't Buying" Bowling Green Daily News (September 6, 1977), 123 No. 212, 16.]

St. Augustine wrote, "For such is the power of true Godhead that it cannot be altogether and utterly hidden from the rational creature, once it makes use of its reason. For with the exception of a few in whom nature is excessively depraved, the whole human race confesses God to be author of the world."

[Erich Przywara, An Augustine Synthesis (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 122.]

Note, as well, the ad hominem implications of this argument.

V. Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum: the appeal is not irrelevant when what most persons believe or what the select few believe does in fact determine what is true. Conventional truth such as the definitions of words, standard use of symbols, and clothing styles, or voting in juries, meetings, or political elections are typical examples where the appeal to the majority , the experts, or the people-in-the-know would be relevant and so would not be fallacious.

A. Many logic sources associate the ad populum fallacy with the presence of emotion alone in expressions of rhetorical passages, patriotic speeches, diatribes, or cheerful

Page 47: legal technique and logic

accolades. However, it's important to understand that no fallacy occurs unless the literal significance of the emotionally expressed evidence is irrelevant to the purported conclusion. The presence of emotively laden language alone does not constitute a fallacy unless an argument is being presented.

B. If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., Is is a legitimate appeal and no fallacy to argue that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, and therefore a high fat diet is unhealthy.

C. The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim.

D. Other examples of where an ad populum appeal would not be fallacious include the "the wisdom of crowds," "swarm intelligence," and "crowd sourcing" because these instruments are often more reliable than other inductive methods.

VI. Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum argument:

"We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant's daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the funiture worker's child in North Carolona who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat ore even a president—that's the future we hope for. That's the vision we share. That's where we need to go—forward. That's where we need to go." ["Transcript of President Obama's Election Night Speech."New York Times (November 7, 2012) quoted in Donna Brazile, "Forward," Index-Journal 94 No. 194 (November 12, 2012), 6A.]

These statements do not constitute an argument and so no fallacy is present in this passage.

"Why are so many people attracted to the Pontiac Grand Prix? It could be that so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix because—so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix!" [A ABC-TV 1992 advertisement quoted in Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1994), 129.}

Undoubtedly, Copi and Cohen are assuming that there is an elliptical conclusion being implied, but the passage as it stands is the fallacy of petition principii

I. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.

Page 48: legal technique and logic

A. Hence, assent or dissent to a statement or an argument is sought on the basis of an irrelevant appeal to pity. In other words, pity, or the related emotion is not the subject or the conclusion of the argument.

B. The informal structure of the ad misericordiam usually is something like this:

Person L argues statement p or argument A.L deserves pity because of circumstance y.Circumstance   y   is irrelevant to   p   or   A . Statement p is true or argument A is good.

II.  Some typical ad misericordiam fallacy examples follow.

Georgia Banker Bert Lance should be excused from conflict of interest divestiture problems, former President Jimmy Carter asserted, because Lance's promise to sell his stock so that he can serve his government has depressed its market value.

Oh, Officer, There's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going too fast because I was just on my way to the hospital to see my wife who is in serious condition to tell her I just lost my job and the car will be repossessed.

Members of Congress can surely see in their hearts that they need to vote in favor of passage of the Gun Bill allowing concealed weapons because their constituents who lobby for liberalizing firearms will be greatly saddened if they do not do so.

Public Schools, K through 12, need to have much easier exams for students because teachers don't fully realize the extent of the emotional repercussions of the sorrow and depression of the many students who could score much better on easier exams.

Richard P. Feynman, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, has been misunderstood almost all of his life. Since World War II, he came close twice to having a mental breakdown--first with the death of his wife and second with the explosion of the atomic bomb. I think that the Journal of Science should publish some of his later theoretical work out of our kind regard for his memory and from the interest of human concern for his difficult life.

Page 49: legal technique and logic

 III.  Related emotions include sympathy, love, regard, mercy, condolence, and compassion. Occasionally, an occurrence of a fallacy can be correctly analyzed as either the ad populum or the ad misericordiamfallacy since these fallacies overlap in their appeal.

IV.  Non-fallacious uses of the ad misericordiam include arguments where the appeal to pity or a related emotion is the subject of the argument or is a pertinent or germane reason for acceptance of the conclusion.

A. Relief arguments are relevant to the problems raised by a disaster caused by a tidal wave and cholera outbreak in India.

B. If we have the choice of buying a newspaper from a blind news vendor, ad misericordiam considerations are not necessarily irrelevant.  The essential question is whether the pity or compassion is relevant to the situation at hand and is being appealed to exclusively or excessively for the acceptance of the conclusion.

C. In Voltaire's Candide, examples of misery are used time and time again to falsify Leibniz's (Pangloss') assertion that this is the best of all possible worlds. The evidence would be relevant to the argument being adduced.

I. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

A. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement with the purported conclusion of the argument.

B. The ad baculum contains implicitly or explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is often the idea that in the end, "Might makes right." Threats,per se, however, are not fallacies because they involve behavior, not arguments.

C. Often the informal structure of argumentum ad baculum is as follows.

If statement p is accepted or action a is done, then logically irrelevant event x will happen.Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening. Therefore, statement p is true or action a should be rejected.

II. Examples of ad baculum fallacies:

Page 50: legal technique and logic

Chairman of the Board: "All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new department, signify by saying, ‘I resign.’"

The Department of Transportation needs to reconsider the speed limit proposals on interstate highways for the simple reason that if they do not, their departmental budget for Department of Transportation will be cut by 25%.

I'm sure you can support the proposal to diversify into the fast food industry because if I receive any opposition on this initiative, I will personally see that you are transferred to the janitorial division of this corporation..

The basis of an ad baculum concerns the fate of medieval philosopher and astronomer Giordano Bruno. Bruno (1548-1600) envisioned a multitude of solar systems in limitless space and believed in the astronomical hypothesis of Copernicus. The Medieval Inquissition threatened his life unless he changed his views. Bruno refused to accept the conclusion of the ad baculum as so was burned at the stake.

"On October 10, 1971, Secretary of State William P. Rogers cautioned foreign ministers that Congress might force the United States reduce its financial contributions to the United Nations if Nationalist China is expelled."

As a logical argument, Rogers' caution is fallacious; as a political maneuver no argument is being adduced.

Page 51: legal technique and logic

III. Since many threats involve emotional responses, they can overlap with the emotional appeal of the ad populum fallacy. The appeal to the fear of not being accepted as part of a group can often be analyzed as either the ad baculum or the ad populum.

IV. Non-fallacious examples of the ad baculum: the appeal is relevant when the threat or the force is directly or causally related to the conclusion.

A. Greenpeace argued that the large underground nuclear tests at Amchitka Island off Alaska in the early 1970's had the possible results of earthquakes, tsunamis, and radiation. Hence, these environmentalists opposed testing. The threat is logically connected with the argument because of the probability of these consequences is not decisional (or prescriptive) but causal—hence, no fallacy occurs.

For example, when environemtal groups object to the use of thermonuclear weapons for in situ recovery of oil from tar sands[1]or use against ground troops, excavation of a new Panama canal or harbor in Australia [2] on the grounds of the dangers of radioactive contamination, the implied threat is relevant and causally connected to the proposed nuclear explosions. Consequently, such arguments would not commit the ad baculum fallacy.

B. Physical or emotional threats in the nature of directive discourse or commands are not arguments and so are not fallacies. E.g., "Study hard or your grades will fall" would not be fallacious for two reasons: (1) no argument is present, and (2) the connection between the two statements of the disjunction suggest a causal relation of relevancy. It is unfortunate that many logic sources identify a fallacy occurring in disjunctive statements like ths.

C. Undecideable Cases: In some controversies the relevancy of the threat cannot be directly determined from the context of the argument, and so the agrument cannot be reliably assessed without background research and contextual analysis in order to determine the facts.

E.g., Consider the following argument:

(1) Publication of research for the creation of avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses with the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host constitutes a risk for human pandemic influenza.(2) Human pandemic influenza signifies the death of millions.----------------------------------------------------(Conclusion) Research for the creation of avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses with the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate

Page 52: legal technique and logic

host should not be published.

Analysis: In the summer of 2011 Dutch researchers from the Erasmus Medical Center created an airborne H5N1 avian flu virus and estimated the virus could kill 59% of the people it infects. [3]The U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity recommended that the Research should not tbe published with experimental details because of the "unusually high magnitude of risk" of someone transforming the virus causing "a pandemic of significant proportions."[4] But many scientists thought the potential threat from terrorists creating a deadly H5N1 virus was greatly exaggerated because the virus could not be easily transmitted among people. So in this case the potential benefit for public health outweighed concerns of terrorists unleashing a pandemic and the paper was published.[5]

I.  Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): the fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and quite different from that which was intended or required. 

A. The ignoratio elenchi is usually considered slightly narrower in focus than the non sequitur. Strictly speaking, any time a conclusion does not follow from its premisses, the non sequitur fallacy occurs. Other similar fallacies include diversion, red herring, subject changing, and ignoring the issue.  In law, such a response given to a question can be called "nonresponsive." 

B. Ignoratio elenchi is a name used for arguments whose premisses have no direct relation on the claim at issue. In this sense of the term, almost any fallacy could be considered an instance of ignoratio elenchi.

C. In general, the ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purporting to establish a specific conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a different conclusion. This version is often termed the red herring fallacy—an irrelevant subject is interjected into the conversation to divert attention away from the main issue.

D. At least, this seems to be the way Aristotle, to some extent, described the fallacy. He writes, "Those that depend upon whether something is said in a certain respect only or said absolutely, are clear cases of ignoratio elenchi because the affirmation and the denial are not concerned with the same point.… Those that depend upon the assumption of the original point and upon stating as the cause what is not the cause, are clearly shown to be cases ofignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof.." (Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations  (Kessinger Publishing, 2004) 11.) Literally,ignoratio elenchi is "ignorance of the nature of how something is refuted." 

More recently, ignoratio elenchi is described less broadly as an argument, whether valid or invalid, not relevant to or a digression from the point at issue. Douglas Walton points out, "It may not come as such a big surprise to find subsequently that the treatment of theignoratio elenchi fallacy in the twentieth-century logic textbooks can be described as a conceptual disarray, mixing several fallacies together in ways that makes it hard to separate them.  (Douglas N. Walton, Relevance in Argumentation (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004) 44.)

II. Ignoratio elenchi will be used in a special sense in these notes as a "catch-all" classification for fallacies of irrelevance which do not clearly fit into the other fallacies outlined here. As such, few examples of this fallacy are provided in these notes and in the exercises and tests.

Page 53: legal technique and logic

A. The ignoratio elenchi is most effective in political contexts where oral arguments are being given. Many listeners in such a context are easily distracted.

B. Often this fallacy can be effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad populum fallacy. The emotional situation in crowd can often be distracting and sometimes leads to overlooking the logical import of what is said.

III. The key in evaluating argument is determining whether or not the appeal used in the argument is relevant to the conclusion or not. Relevance is established by either logical or evidential connection.

A. One quick way to establish relevance is to ask yourself if the premisses were false, would that fact imply that the conclusion is false also?  It it would not, then the premisses can be considered irrelevant to the conclusion.

B. Consider the following example:

"The 52 former hostages are seen as national heroes. I consider them survivors. A hero is one who is admired for his achievements and qualities. Therefore, the true heroes are those servicemen who volunteered for the failed rescue mission." 

Irene Coyne, "Letters" Time (Vol 117, No. 7), 4.

1. Ms. Coyne is arguing that the servicemen who failed to rescue the hostages are heroes for the reason that heroes are admired for their achievements and qualities. For this premiss to be relevant to the conclusion, we must assume that the servicemen who failed are admired for their achievements and qualities. If this assumption were to be supported by further reasons, the ignoratio elenchi need not have occurred.

2. In other words, in order to determine relevance, we would ask Ms. Coyne, "Would those servicemen be true heroes if they had not volunteered, and if they would have rescued the hostages?"  Doubtless, she would agree that they still would be considered heroes; hence, the fallacy of  ignoratio elenchioccurs.  (Note how this ignoratio elenchi is coupled with ad populum consideration.)

C. Is the following example the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi?

"We request your help in compiling a book which recalls memories from our parents' first 50 years of marriage. On the enclosed sheet, we ask that you write one memory or event that you have shared with them, and return it to us by April 25.

Page 54: legal technique and logic

We believe that loving memories they have shared with you, their friends, would be the most treasured gift they could receive; therefore, we request that no other gift be sent."

I. Complex Question: the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually an answer to the question) must be present either implicitly or explicitly.

A. The fallacy of complex question is usually (but not always) in the form or a question. The fallacy involves the asking of a question that tacitly assumes the truth of a statement (or occurrence of a state of affairs) not generally granted or given unto evidence.

B. If an argument is present, the question, itself, must be evaluated as a statement, i.e., a verbal expression implicitly having a truth value.

C. The informal structure of the fallacy is often similar to the following:

How are related statements p and q true (or false), where p is an unwarranted assumption. Statement p is true (or false).

D.E. The problems associated with both the fallacy and the rhetorical techniques of complex

question often are used as techniques of subterfuge by persons in authority to elicit a confession or to manipulate attitudes.

A. Although often manipulative, unethical, and improper, complex questions in the form of leading questions occur in surveys, law courts, journalistic interviews, and police cross-examinations. Leading questions can be assumptive, implicative, or intimidating, not all of which are

1. Assumptive questions are designed to take for granted the very question at issue. As a former police interrogator and fraud examiner states, "Regardless of the questioner's surety of … guilt, it would be most sensible to start with [a] question [that] … assumes guilt, which makes the job of denial more difficult than issuing a simple ‘no.’[1]

2. Counselors, psychologists, and related professionals use complex question as an investigative technique.

For example, a noted psychotherapist writes, "We therapists have our little cunning ways—statements such as: ‘I wonder what blocks you from acting upon the decision you already seem to have made.’"[2]

3. Although some leading questions may be asked as the discretion of the presiding judge, in general they are not permitted because they have been

Page 55: legal technique and logic

shown to alter testimony. In Hugo Münsterberg's experiments at Harvard, "the leading question was put to each menber of the class—‘Did you notice the stove in the room?’ (there was no stove there)—and 59 per cent of the class answered ‘Yes,’ and having once admitted seeing the stove they proceeded to locate it, and tell in what part of the room it was."[3]

4. Francis Wellman, the famous trial lawyer, writes, "[I]t is easy to produce evidence that varies very widely from the exact truth. This is often done by overzealous practitioners by putting leading questions or by incorporating two questions into tone, the second a simple one, misleading the witness into a ‘yes’ for both, and thus creating an entirely false impression.[4]

B. Identification of the presuppositions of a complex question and clarifying what is at issue has much in common with "dividing the question" as is done in an application of the rules of order in conducting meetings:

"(1.) Dividing a question. When a motion embraces several parts, each of which forms substantially a separate proposition, the rsolution of it into distinct motions or questions is called dividing the question. (2.) Advantage of such division. It affords the assembly an opportunity to recieve or to reject what part it thinks proper …"[5]

C. The technique of resolving complex questions is also similar to understanding the need for a "line-item veto" where particular provisions of a list can be vetoed without rejecting all provisions of a proposal.

F. Occasionally, the fallacy of complex question is simply an unwarranted assumption in an argument and a question (i.e., an interrogative sentence) is not present in the passage.

For example, in Barack Obama's primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice condemned Clinton's policy of Iraq and Iran by demanding an "explanation of how and why she got those critical judgements wrong."[6]

G. Rarely, the fallacy occurs with the presuppositions of the question explicitly stated in separate statement as in this example:

"Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote recently: ‘It is the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks ‘millionaires and billionaires.’ Who regularly makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the other—the good Americans. How's that for presidential tone?’"[7]

Page 56: legal technique and logic

II. The assumption or presupposition to a complex question can only be known from the context. Not all cases where something not generally granted is assumed are fallacious because not all such passages involve arguments.

A. E.g., a prosecutor demands from a defendant, "Did you commit the murder before or after you bought the soft drink?"

Here, no argument is being given, so no fallacy occurs. Obviously, the whole sense of the question changes if the prosecutor is asking the question just after the defendant confessed to the murder.

B. The classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would not be a fallacy unless explicitly or implicitly the speaker is assuming without evidence that you beat your wife, and this is the very point he wishes to draw as a conclusion. It's difficult to construct this example in such a way that a fallacy, instead of a rhetorical technique, occurs. This interrogative sentence, often used as a defining example of the fallacy of complex question is not a fallacy unless it occurs as a premise in an argument.

C. As an example of "unpacking" presuppositions of a question, analyze what is being assumed in the following example sentence:

"What church do you and your family attend?"

The main presupposition can be listed as follows.

1. You attend church.2. You have a family.3. Your family attends church.4. You and your family attend the same church.

III. Assorted examples of the fallacy of complex question:

"If a choice must be made, I'll adopt God's nonexistence as a working assumption. If I am mistaken, I hope He is not offended by my demand for evidence. (Many believers seem to think that God is offended by atheists. Is he overly proud or merely insecure?)"[8].

"When software programs are trying to outsmart other software programs and hack the world's trading platforms, that is a recipe for disaster.… How many times an hour are there failures across individual equities around the world because of software running algorithms battling each other for supremacy to make a profitable trade? We have no idea."[9].

Page 57: legal technique and logic

"Look very closely. You will see that no person and no circumstance can prevent you from becoming a self-understanding man or woman. Who is stopping you at this very moment? No one."[10].

The following passage on the problem of redistribution is discussing whether people should be paid on how hard they try, rather than rewarding those with natural ability:

"How hard you're willing to work is powerfully influenced by how much skill nature has given you and thus how much chance you have of achieving a satisfying success. The case for redistribution is not without its troubles: Anyone who says that what nature has given you has nothing to do with what you should be allowed to keep must ultimately answer questions like why couples who produce beautiful children shouldn't be made to give some of them to parents who can only turn out ugly ducklings." [11]

IV. Nonfallacious examples of complex question are usually rhetorical techniques, as explained above. Again for a fallacy to occur an argumentmust be present.1

A. If a question's presuppositions are legitimately assumed by all parties, and the presuppositions are all relevant, then no fallacy has been committed.

B. Fallacy Practice: Analyze the following passages and state whether or not the fallacy of complex question has occurred.

1. "An almost equally exasperating aspect of the autonomy struggle is the toddler's inability to make choices. The parent asks whether the child wants a cookie or a lollipop. First the child says, ‘Cookie,’ but as soon as he gets the cookie, he wants a lollipop. The parent patiently takes away the cookie and gives the toddler a lollipop, but now the child wants the cookie again. The problem is that the child wants the right to choose, but does not want to make a choice. From the child's point of view, he does not have a choice unless he can choose them both."[12]

2. "Shoppers at F.W. Woolworth Co.'s stores might detect one means of a company minimizing its borrowing needs. According to Ellis Smith, executive vice president of finance, the company ‘hardly acknowledges’ it own charge system. The first question

Page 58: legal technique and logic

our people are instructed to ask is, ‘Is the purchase cash?’ If it isn't, the second question is ‘Is this Visa or Master Charge?’"[13]

3. "Agence France-Presse concluded its story by noting, ‘Studies have described a rise in the prevalence of mental disorders in China, some of them linked to stress as the pace of life becomes faster and socialist support systems falter.’ There [sic] is sheer preposterous propaganda. What ’study‘ could possibly prove that stress regarding ‘the pace of life’ and the decline of ’socialist support systems‘ (whatever they are) had increased mental illness? Western intellectuals, very much including the press, are still in love with socialism—even its communist variant."[14]

4. "Concerning the July 16 Cover Story, ‘The Euro's Fate’ Is that the best Europe can do? Print, print, print money; destroy the middle class by crushing savers and stoking inflation; enforce unnaturally low interest rates that only serve to provide cover for irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next several generations that will be impoverished with debt." [15]

5. "There is a tale, probably apocryphal, told of that notoriously merry monarch Charles II. There was a dinner to commemorate the foundation of the Royal Society. At the end of the evening, ‘with the peculiar gravity of countenance which he usually wore on such occasions,’ he put a challenge to the Fellows. ‘Suppose two pails of water were fixed in two different scales that were equally poised, and which weighted equally alike, and that two live bream, or small fish, were put into either of these pails.‘ He wanted to know the reason why that pail, with such additions should not weigh more than the other pail which stood against it. Many suggested possible explanations, and argued for their own suggestions with more or less vigour. But at last one who perhaps remembered that the motto of that great society is ‘Nullium in verba’ (Take no man's word for it!) denied the assumption: ‘It would weigh more.’ The King was delighted: ‘Odds fish, brother, you are in the right.’"[16]

6. "Romney did what he has done when in trouble in the past. He lashed out. ‘Do you want four more years with 23 million people out of work or underemployed?’ he asked. ‘Do you want four more years where incomes go down every single year? You want four more years with gasoline prices doubling? Do you want four more years with unemployment above 8 percent?‘ Romney was shouting, jabbing his finger in the air."[17]

Page 59: legal technique and logic

7. "Bion, that was an atheist, was showed in a port city, in a temple of Neptune, many tables of pictures, of such as had in tempests made their vows to Neptune, and were saved from shipwreck: and was asked, ‘How say you not? Do you not acknowledge the power of the gods?’ But he said, ‘Yes, but where are they painted that have been drowned after their vows?’"[18]

8. " Joe, let's take a look at what is happening for you in the group. Here you are, after two months, not feeling good about yourself in this group and with several members impatient with you (or intimidated, or avoidant, or angry, or annoyed, or feeling seduced or betrayed). What's happened? Is this a familiar place for you? Would you be willing to take a look at your role in bringing this to pass?"[19]

9. "Cutting your next year's budget by 2% but still having it up 4% from this year and calling it a ‘cut’ is ludicrous. [The suggestion is] our leaders must kick the deficit-reduction can down the road one more time. I ask: When exactly will it be a good time to have economic contraction?"[20]

10."Is that the best Europe can do? Print, print, print money; destroy the middle class by crushing savers and stoking inflation; enforce unnaturally low interest rates that only serve to provide cover for irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next several generations that will be impoverished with debt[?]"

[21]

I.  False Cause:  the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection.  There are two basic interrelated kinds.

A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc:  (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.

Page 60: legal technique and logic

1. I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal connection. E.g., consider "Since hair always precedes the growth of teeth in babies, the growth of hair causes the growth of teeth."

2. Consider also "Every severe recession follows a Republican Presidency; therefore Republicans are the cause of recessions."  Accidental generalizations need not always be causal relations.

B. Causal connections are difficult to establish; the nature of causality is an active area of inquiry in the philosophy of science.

C. Non causa pro causa:  (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect.  This is the general category of "false cause."

II. The informal structure of the fallacy is usually similar to one of the following.

Event   x   is related to (or is followed by) event   y . Event x caused event y.

or

Events of kind   x   are followed by events of kind   y .Events of kind x cause events of kind y.

III. Examples of false cause:

"We hear that a writer has just filed a two million dollar lawsuit against the Coors beer company for pickling his brain. It seems that he had been consuming large quantities of Coors' 3.2 beer, containing only 3.2 percent alcohol and so supposedly non-intoxicating, at his local tavern. But, the suit contends, the stuff was insidiously marinating his mind; and as a result he has been unable to finish writing his second novel. The author may have a point. But we have to wonder whether the damage was caused by the beer, or by the current fad of

Page 61: legal technique and logic

product liability suits." Wall Street Journal(02.14.79).

There are two cases of false cause here, but the second, theJournal's, is tongue-in-cheek

"Napoleon became a great emperor because he was so short."

(If this were a causal inference, then all short people would become emperors.)

"Dear ABBY:  If GOING BALD doesn't have any sighs of rash, or sores on her head, she should make a mixture of castor oil and sheep dung, and plaster it on her head every night.  (Tell her to wear a shower cap so she won't mess up her pillow.)  I started losing my hair after the birth of my child.  My grandmother gave me this remedy and it worked.  Index Journal (02.01.80).

"Defense attorney Ellis Rubin claims Ronald Zamora's constant exposure to TV crime shows such as re-runs of 'Kojak' and 'Police Woman' was responsible for 'diseasing his mind and impairing his behavior controls.'  'Without the influence of television ... there would not have been any crime,' Rubin argued."  Index Journal(08.13.77).

"When the telephone was first introduced to Saudi Arabia, some contended it was an instrument of the devil.  But others pointed out that, according to Moslem doctrine, the devil is incapable of reciting the Koran.  When several verses of the Koran were recited and heard over the phone, skeptics were convinced that the instrument wasn't evil." Wall Street Journal (11.11.79).

"Especially bothersome to some parents whose children have chest pain, are reports in the media of sudden death in what appeared to be otherwise healthy athletes.  There are many causes of chest pain in children.  The most common cause is called idiopathic chest pain.  Idiopathic means the cause is unknown.  One can only call chest pain idiopathic after they have ruled out other causes." Randy Robinson, M.D. "Family Practice Notes," Index Journal (n.d.).

IV. Establishing causality in science is difficult.  Usually if all A's are followed by B's then one suspect that A caused B.  But even this generalization could be a coincidence.  For the most part, causality is no longer used in science;  correlation is sought instead.

Page 62: legal technique and logic

I.  Petitio Principii: (circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question) in general, the fallacy of assuming as a premiss a statement which has the same meaning as the conclusion.

A. The least convincing kind of petitio principii is the repetition of the same words in the same order in both premiss and conclusion..  Generally, such an argument would not be misleading and would only be given in unusual circumstances, e.g., the speaker is very tired, talking to a child, or talking to a subordinate.  Two examples follow.

1. "Dear Friend, a man who has studied law to its highest degree is a brilliant lawyer, for a brilliant lawyer has studied law to its highest degree."  Oscar Wilde, De Profundis.

2. --"What a brain!  And you know how to prove things, like the big shots?--Yeah, I have a special method for that.  Ask me to prove something for you, something real hard.--All right, prove to me that giraffes go up in elevators.--Let's see.  Giraffes go up in elevators  ... because they go up in elevators.--Good, that was great! ... Suppose I asked you to prove giraffes don't go up in elevators.  --That's easy.  I just prove the same thing, but the other way around." Fernando Arrabal,  El Cementerio de Automoviles, el Arquitecto y El

B. A more common kind of petitio principii is the transformation of the conclusion into a premiss using logical or grammatical principles. For example ...

1. "You know that God is a just and loving God because God is God and cannot be unjust or unloving."

2. "Women write the best novels because men do not write novels as well."3. "There are many juvenile delinquents because many juveniles break the law, and the

reason so many juveniles break the law is that they are juvenile delinquents."

C. A third kind of petitio prinicpii is the use of an intermediate step in shifting to the same meaning from the premiss to the conclusion. A linking of premisses and conclusions return to the beginning. For example ...

1. "The soul is simple because it is immortal, and it must be immortal because it's simple."

Page 63: legal technique and logic

2. "I once overheard three brothers dividing two candy bars. The oldest one gave each of the two younger ones half of a candy bar, and kept a whole bar for himelf. When asked why he got more candy, he said he was the smartest. A few minutes later, one of the younger ones asked why he was the smartest, and in reply the oldest said \'Because I have more candy.'" Ernest J. Chave, Personality Development in Children (Univ. of Chicago, 1937), 151.

D. The most difficult kind of petitio principii to identify is the kind where the premiss and the conclusion have the same "propositional content." I.e., the statements are suitable paraphrases of each other, and each depends upon the other for its truth.

1. "The elemental composition of Jupiter is known to be similar to the sun... The core would be composed mainly of iron and silicates, the materials that make up most of the earth's bulk. Such a core is expected for cosmogonic reasons: If Jupiter's composition is similar to the sun's, the the planet should contain a small portion of those elements." J. Wolfe, "Jupiter,"Scientific American (Vol. 230 No. 1), 119.

2. The following example is a description of a petitio principiicommitted by Engel:

"A law has been named after Engel in light of this work. Engel's law states that 'the poorer the individual, the family or a people, the greater must be the percentage of the income needed for the maintenance of physical sustenance, and of this a greater proportion must be allowed for food.' It is odd to find this as a law, since Engel had used the proportion of outgoings on food as the measure of material standard of living." Ian Hacking, The Taming of Chance, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 140.

3. A contradiction to my theory of dream produced by another of my women patients (the cleverest of all my dreamers) was resolved more simply, but upon the same pattern: namely that the nonfulfillment of one wish meant the fulfillment of another.  One day I had been explaining to her that dreams are fulfillments of wishes. Next day she brought me a dream in which she was traveling down with her mother-in-law to the place in the country where they were to spend their holidays together.  Now I knew that she had violently rebelled against the idea of spending the summer near her mother-in-law and that a few days earlier she had successfully avoided the propinquity she dreaded by engaging rooms in a far distant resort.  And now her dream had undone the solution she had wished for;  was not this the sharpest contradiction of my theory that in dreams wishes are fulfilled? No doubt;  and it was

Page 64: legal technique and logic

only necessary to follow the dreams logical consequence in order to arrive at its interpretation.  The dream showed that I was wrong.  Thus it was her wish that I might be wrong, and her dream showed that wish fulfilled (italics original)" Sigmund Freud, The Interpretations of Dreams (New York: Avon, 1966), 185.

II. The informal structure of the petitio principii is usually similar to one of the following.

Statement   p   is true. Statement not-p is not true.

or

Statement   p   is true. Statement   q   is true. Statement   r   is true. Statement p is true.

III.  The reason petitio principii is considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid (because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the argument can be deceptive.  A statement cannot prove itself.  A premiss must have a different source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth  from that of the conclusion.

I.  Accident: the fallacy of applying a general rule to a particular case whose special circumstances render the rule inapplicable.

A. The fallacy of accident results from using a statement which has a qualified meaning as if it had no qualification whatsoever.

1. E.g., "Thou shalt not kill;  therefore, you should not try to control termites in your home or fight for your country."

2. E.g., "All persons are created equal, so since you made a C in this class, you haven't been working as hard as you should."Even though people are supposedly created equal politically, it does not follow that they are created equal in academic pursuits."

B. The fallacy of accident arises from believing the general premiss which has a qualified meaning applies in all circumstances without restriction.

Page 65: legal technique and logic

1. "The U.S. is a true democracy; therefore, children and criminals should be allowed to vote."

2. "People are defined as rational animals.  Therefore, you should spend more time reasoning and thinking rather than enjoying yourself with what you do."

C. Recognition of this fallacy sometimes leads to the statement, "It is the exception that proves the rule."

D. The generalization used in the premiss is sometimes termed "a glittering generality."

II. The informal structure of accident is as follows.

Rule or general statement   p   is true in circumstances   x . Rule or general statement is true in circumstances y.

III.  The rule or general statement in the fallacy of accident can be of several different kinds.

A. Aphorism: a concise statement of a truth, a maxim, or an adage.E.g., "Honesty is the best policy," or "A new broom sweeps clean."

B. Cliché: a trite or overworked expression. E.g., "No pain, no gain," or "Go for it!"

C. Moral principles, empirical generalizations, and presuppositions are also generalizations often used as premisses in the fallacy of accident

I. Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of considering certain exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. Note that the fallacy of converse accident is the opposite of accident.

A. Thus, a general statement is made on the basis of insufficient evidence or on the basis of only a few examples.

Page 66: legal technique and logic

1. E.g., "Wow! Did you see that teenager run that red light? Teenage drivers are really pathetic."

2. E.g., The following argument is raised to oppose the view that boys have greater inherent mathematical ability. "When I was four, my father taught me the beauty of numbers, and I have excelled in mathematics ever since. My conclusion? The males who grew up with a high aptitude for math are not spending enough time with their daughters." Nancy Whelan Reese, "Letters," Time 117, No. 1 (January 4, 1981), 6.

B. The generalization is sometimes made on the basis of carelessly selected evidence

1. E.g., "I interviewed ten people on Main Street in Greenwood on Friday night, and they all stated they would rather be there than watching TV. I conclude that the folks in Greenwood don't like to watch TV on Friday night."

2. E.g., "As I drove to school this morning, not one car which was turning had its turn signal on. Thus, I conclude that drivers in South Carolina are not trained to drive very well."

3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many instances of a class must be observed before one can be really sure? Having experienced two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many men, a sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of course, never make this sort of error.)" [James L. Christian, Philosophy (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1998), ]

4. As legislators, women make a difference. They are far more likely to identify problems of gender bias, and we know this firsthand. Cokie's mom, Lindy Goggs, served 18 years in Congress and authored legislation banning discrimination against women in bank lending practices.[Cokie Roberts and Steve Roberts, "Women Are Flexing Their Political Muscles," Index-Journal 94 No. 153 (September 30, 2012), 11A.]

C. Converse accident, as with other fallacies, is determinable in context, and the argument sometimes has to be reconstructed:

"[T]he [P]resident [commented] last February: ‘One of the proudest things in my three years in office is helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the world.’ In light of the uprising that included the burning of American flags in the Middle East and the murder of Americans in Libya, that's one more broken promise that can be added to a

Page 67: legal technique and logic

growing list."[Cal Thomas, "Distractions and Diversions," Index-Journal 94 Vol. 146 (September 24, 2012), 8A.]

Two tragic events are cited in support of generalization that the President is not helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the world. Since these two examples are not particularly atypical examples, this converse accident is also a weak inductive argument because they do lend some probability to the unstated implicit or enthymematic conclusion.

D. Fallacies of converse accident and hasty generalization are sometimes difficult to distinguish.

1. Converse accident occurs when a generalization about all instances of a kind is based on either too few examples which are not known to be typical or based on instances of a different kind, whereas false cause occurs when the conclusion of a causal relation is based on a correlation in time or circumstance. The generalization in converse accident need not be causal, and the causal relation in false cause need not be general.

a. E.g., "There's nothing you can't get used to. Just think about all the unpleasant things you've accepted as ordinary, like wading through traffic or dealing with a bad-tempered relative or coworker." [Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, The Joy of Living (New York: Harmony Books, 2007), 44.]

The argument is that since you got used to a few ordinary annoying situations, the conclusion then follows that you can get used to anything. Since the conclusion is not a causal generalization, the argument is converse accident rather than false cause.

b. E.g., "[T]he market as a rule does better under Democratic presidents than their counterparts. Certainly, the last four years proves the point."[Robert E. Anderson, "Mailbag: Earnings and Interest,"Barron's (November 12, 2012) 92 No. 46, 50.]

The last four years refers to the first Barack Obama administration when the stock market rose about 20% and the correlation is being suggested between a Democratic President and an improving market. The general conclusion is said to follow from this one correlation that the stock market does better under Democratic leadership than it does under Republican leadership. Since no causal relation is explicitly being asserted in the conclusion, the better identification of this fallacy is converse accident.

Page 68: legal technique and logic

2. When the conclusion about a causal generalization is reached from a premise or from premises involving one or more atypical correlations or atypical causal relations either fallacy may be said to occur.

E.g., "A balanced, healthy diet is the best remedy for disease in general. I have a cousin who is a breast cancer survivor, and she now consumes juiced fruits and vegetables in enormous quantities to keep herself healthy, and so far her cancer has stayed in complete remission." [Karen Lee, "Restoring Your Inner Balance -- How to Stop the Aging Process in its Tracks," Pick the Brain, http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/restoring-your-inner-balance-how-to-stop-the-aging-process-in-its-tracks/, accessed April 8, 2012.]

The conclusion that the remedy for all diseases is affected by a good diet is based on the reason cited of a cousin whose healthy diet has kept her cancer in remission. This example can be identified as either converse accident or false cause since a causal relation of remedying all diseases is concluded from the correlation or causal relation of one person remedying one disease.

II. As a quick check of your understanding of the fallacies of accident and converse accident, evaluate the following passages.

A. "Former Brooklyn Dodger Joe Black, speaking in Clinton, helped put the drug situation in professional athletics in better perspective. The former pitcher, a black man, said he has no sympathy for the argument that pressures of the professional athlete's lifestyle can lead to drug abuse. “There are no pressures in professional sports that make you use drugs or booze. Jackie Robinson didn't use drugs. Willie Mays didn't use drugs. I didn't use drugs. That's a cop out,’ Black said." [Index-Journal 64 No. 99 (August 8, 1982), B-3.]

B. "All persons admitted to Lander University must abide by its policies. Therefore you must abide by the university parking rules."

C. The USDA policies for farmers are worthless. Why I know a guy who collects thousands of dollars for not planting wheat and spends his spare time at the race track.

Page 69: legal technique and logic

D. "I'm generalizing from one example, here, but everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do."[Steven Brust, Issola (New York: Macmillan, 2002), Ch. 14.]

E. "The external world is simply the suggestion, the occasion, which sets you to study your own mind, but the object of your study is always your own mind. The falling of an apple gave the suggestion to Newton, and he studied his own mind; hr rearranged all the previous links of thought in his mind and discovered a new link among them, which we call the law of gravitation. It was not in the apple nor in anything in the centre of the earth. All knowledge therefore, secular or spiritual, is in the human mind."[Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of the Swami Vivekananda (Mayavati: Advaita Ashram, 1915), 46.

I. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.

A. Hence, assent or dissent to a statement or an argument is sought on the basis of an irrelevant appeal to pity. In other words, pity, or the related emotion is not the subject or the conclusion of the argument.

B. The informal structure of the ad misericordiam usually is something like this:

Person L argues statement p or argument A.L deserves pity because of circumstance y.Circumstance   y   is irrelevant to   p   or   A . Statement p is true or argument A is good.

II.  Some typical ad misericordiam fallacy examples follow.

Georgia Banker Bert Lance should be excused from conflict of interest divestiture problems, former President Jimmy Carter asserted, because Lance's promise to sell his stock so that he can serve his government has depressed its market value.

Oh, Officer, There's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going too fast because I was just on my way to the hospital to see my wife who is in serious condition to tell her I just lost my job and the car will be repossessed.

Members of Congress can surely see in their hearts that they need to vote in favor of passage of the Gun

Page 70: legal technique and logic

Bill allowing concealed weapons because their constituents who lobby for liberalizing firearms will be greatly saddened if they do not do so.

Public Schools, K through 12, need to have much easier exams for students because teachers don't fully realize the extent of the emotional repercussions of the sorrow and depression of the many students who could score much better on easier exams.

Richard P. Feynman, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, has been misunderstood almost all of his life. Since World War II, he came close twice to having a mental breakdown--first with the death of his wife and second with the explosion of the atomic bomb. I think that the Journal of Science should publish some of his later theoretical work out of our kind regard for his memory and from the interest of human concern for his difficult life.

 III.  Related emotions include sympathy, love, regard, mercy, condolence, and compassion. Occasionally, an occurrence of a fallacy can be correctly analyzed as either the ad populum or the ad misericordiamfallacy since these fallacies overlap in their appeal.

IV.  Non-fallacious uses of the ad misericordiam include arguments where the appeal to pity or a related emotion is the subject of the argument or is a pertinent or germane reason for acceptance of the conclusion.

A. Relief arguments are relevant to the problems raised by a disaster caused by a tidal wave and cholera outbreak in India.

B. If we have the choice of buying a newspaper from a blind news vendor, ad misericordiam considerations are not necessarily irrelevant.  The essential question is whether the pity or compassion is relevant to the situation at hand and is being appealed to exclusively or excessively for the acceptance of the conclusion.

C. In Voltaire's Candide, examples of misery are used time and time again to falsify Leibniz's (Pangloss') assertion that this is the best of all possible worlds. The evidence would be relevant to the argument being adduced.

. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

Page 71: legal technique and logic

A. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement with the purported conclusion of the argument.

B. The ad baculum contains implicitly or explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is often the idea that in the end, "Might makes right." Threats,per se, however, are not fallacies because they involve behavior, not arguments.

C. Often the informal structure of argumentum ad baculum is as follows.

If statement p is accepted or action a is done, then logically irrelevant event x will happen.Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening. Therefore, statement p is true or action a should be rejected.

II. Examples of ad baculum fallacies:

Chairman of the Board: "All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new department, signify by saying, ‘I resign.’"

The Department of Transportation needs to reconsider the speed limit proposals on interstate highways for the simple reason that if they do not, their departmental budget for Department of Transportation will be cut by 25%.

I'm sure you can support the proposal to diversify into the fast food industry because if I receive any opposition on this initiative, I will personally see that you are transferred to the janitorial division of this corporation..

The basis of an ad baculum concerns the fate of medieval philosopher and astronomer

Page 72: legal technique and logic

Giordano Bruno. Bruno (1548-1600) envisioned a multitude of solar systems in limitless space and believed in the astronomical hypothesis of Copernicus. The Medieval Inquissition threatened his life unless he changed his views. Bruno refused to accept the conclusion of the ad baculum as so was burned at the stake.

"On October 10, 1971, Secretary of State William P. Rogers cautioned foreign ministers that Congress might force the United States reduce its financial contributions to the United Nations if Nationalist China is expelled."

As a logical argument, Rogers' caution is fallacious; as a political maneuver no argument is being adduced.

III. Since many threats involve emotional responses, they can overlap with the emotional appeal of the ad populum fallacy. The appeal to the fear of not being accepted as part of a group can often be analyzed as either the ad baculum or the ad populum.

IV. Non-fallacious examples of the ad baculum: the appeal is relevant when the threat or the force is directly or causally related to the conclusion.

A. Greenpeace argued that the large underground nuclear tests at Amchitka Island off Alaska in the early 1970's had the possible results of earthquakes, tsunamis, and radiation. Hence, these environmentalists opposed testing. The threat is logically connected with the argument because of the probability of these consequences is not decisional (or prescriptive) but causal—hence, no fallacy occurs.

For example, when environemtal groups object to the use of thermonuclear weapons for in situ recovery of oil from tar sands[1]or use against ground troops, excavation of a new Panama canal or harbor in Australia [2] on the grounds of the dangers of radioactive contamination, the implied threat is relevant and causally connected to the proposed nuclear explosions. Consequently, such arguments would not commit the ad baculum fallacy.

B. Physical or emotional threats in the nature of directive discourse or commands are not arguments and so are not fallacies. E.g., "Study hard or your grades will fall" would not be fallacious for two reasons: (1) no argument is present, and (2) the connection between the

Page 73: legal technique and logic

two statements of the disjunction suggest a causal relation of relevancy. It is unfortunate that many logic sources identify a fallacy occurring in disjunctive statements like ths.

C. Undecideable Cases: In some controversies the relevancy of the threat cannot be directly determined from the context of the argument, and so the agrument cannot be reliably assessed without background research and contextual analysis in order to determine the facts.

E.g., Consider the following argument:

(1) Publication of research for the creation of avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses with the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host constitutes a risk for human pandemic influenza.(2) Human pandemic influenza signifies the death of millions.----------------------------------------------------(Conclusion) Research for the creation of avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses with the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host should not be published.

Analysis: In the summer of 2011 Dutch researchers from the Erasmus Medical Center created an airborne H5N1 avian flu virus and estimated the virus could kill 59% of the people it infects. [3]The U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity recommended that the Research should not tbe published with experimental details because of the "unusually high magnitude of risk" of someone transforming the virus causing "a pandemic of significant proportions."[4] But many scientists thought the potential threat from terrorists creating a deadly H5N1 virus was greatly exaggerated because the virus could not be easily transmitted among people. So in this case the potential benefit for public health outweighed concerns of terrorists unleashing a pandemic and the paper was published.[5]

I.  Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): the fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and quite different from that which was intended or required. 

A. The ignoratio elenchi is usually considered slightly narrower in focus than the non sequitur. Strictly speaking, any time a conclusion does not follow from its premisses, the non sequitur fallacy occurs. Other similar fallacies include diversion, red herring, subject changing, and ignoring the issue.  In law, such a response given to a question can be called "nonresponsive." 

B. Ignoratio elenchi is a name used for arguments whose premisses have no direct relation on the claim at issue. In this sense of the term, almost any fallacy could be considered an instance of ignoratio elenchi.

Page 74: legal technique and logic

C. In general, the ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purporting to establish a specific conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a different conclusion. This version is often termed the red herring fallacy—an irrelevant subject is interjected into the conversation to divert attention away from the main issue.

D. At least, this seems to be the way Aristotle, to some extent, described the fallacy. He writes, "Those that depend upon whether something is said in a certain respect only or said absolutely, are clear cases of ignoratio elenchi because the affirmation and the denial are not concerned with the same point.… Those that depend upon the assumption of the original point and upon stating as the cause what is not the cause, are clearly shown to be cases ofignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof.." (Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations  (Kessinger Publishing, 2004) 11.) Literally,ignoratio elenchi is "ignorance of the nature of how something is refuted." 

More recently, ignoratio elenchi is described less broadly as an argument, whether valid or invalid, not relevant to or a digression from the point at issue. Douglas Walton points out, "It may not come as such a big surprise to find subsequently that the treatment of theignoratio elenchi fallacy in the twentieth-century logic textbooks can be described as a conceptual disarray, mixing several fallacies together in ways that makes it hard to separate them.  (Douglas N. Walton, Relevance in Argumentation (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004) 44.)

II. Ignoratio elenchi will be used in a special sense in these notes as a "catch-all" classification for fallacies of irrelevance which do not clearly fit into the other fallacies outlined here. As such, few examples of this fallacy are provided in these notes and in the exercises and tests.

A. The ignoratio elenchi is most effective in political contexts where oral arguments are being given. Many listeners in such a context are easily distracted.

B. Often this fallacy can be effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad populum fallacy. The emotional situation in crowd can often be distracting and sometimes leads to overlooking the logical import of what is said.

III. The key in evaluating argument is determining whether or not the appeal used in the argument is relevant to the conclusion or not. Relevance is established by either logical or evidential connection.

A. One quick way to establish relevance is to ask yourself if the premisses were false, would that fact imply that the conclusion is false also?  It it would not, then the premisses can be considered irrelevant to the conclusion.

B. Consider the following example:

"The 52 former hostages are seen as national heroes. I consider them survivors. A hero is one who is admired for his achievements and qualities. Therefore, the true heroes are those servicemen who volunteered for the failed rescue mission." 

Page 75: legal technique and logic

Irene Coyne, "Letters" Time (Vol 117, No. 7), 4.

1. Ms. Coyne is arguing that the servicemen who failed to rescue the hostages are heroes for the reason that heroes are admired for their achievements and qualities. For this premiss to be relevant to the conclusion, we must assume that the servicemen who failed are admired for their achievements and qualities. If this assumption were to be supported by further reasons, the ignoratio elenchi need not have occurred.

2. In other words, in order to determine relevance, we would ask Ms. Coyne, "Would those servicemen be true heroes if they had not volunteered, and if they would have rescued the hostages?"  Doubtless, she would agree that they still would be considered heroes; hence, the fallacy of  ignoratio elenchioccurs.  (Note how this ignoratio elenchi is coupled with ad populum consideration.)

C. Is the following example the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi?

"We request your help in compiling a book which recalls memories from our parents' first 50 years of marriage. On the enclosed sheet, we ask that you write one memory or event that you have shared with them, and return it to us by April 25. We believe that loving memories they have shared with you, their friends, would be the most treasured gift they could receive; therefore, we request that no other gift be sent."

"Dear Abby," The Index Journal (02.02.80), 14.

I. Complex Question: the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually an answer to the question) must be present either implicitly or explicitly.

A. The fallacy of complex question is usually (but not always) in the form or a question. The fallacy involves the asking of a question that tacitly assumes the truth of a statement (or occurrence of a state of affairs) not generally granted or given unto evidence.

B. If an argument is present, the question, itself, must be evaluated as a statement, i.e., a verbal expression implicitly having a truth value.

C. The informal structure of the fallacy is often similar to the following:

How are related statements p and q true (or false), where p is an unwarranted assumption. Statement p is true (or false).

D.

Page 76: legal technique and logic

E. The problems associated with both the fallacy and the rhetorical techniques of complex question often are used as techniques of subterfuge by persons in authority to elicit a confession or to manipulate attitudes.

A. Although often manipulative, unethical, and improper, complex questions in the form of leading questions occur in surveys, law courts, journalistic interviews, and police cross-examinations. Leading questions can be assumptive, implicative, or intimidating, not all of which are

1. Assumptive questions are designed to take for granted the very question at issue. As a former police interrogator and fraud examiner states, "Regardless of the questioner's surety of … guilt, it would be most sensible to start with [a] question [that] … assumes guilt, which makes the job of denial more difficult than issuing a simple ‘no.’[1]

2. Counselors, psychologists, and related professionals use complex question as an investigative technique.

For example, a noted psychotherapist writes, "We therapists have our little cunning ways—statements such as: ‘I wonder what blocks you from acting upon the decision you already seem to have made.’"[2]

3. Although some leading questions may be asked as the discretion of the presiding judge, in general they are not permitted because they have been shown to alter testimony. In Hugo Münsterberg's experiments at Harvard, "the leading question was put to each menber of the class—‘Did you notice the stove in the room?’ (there was no stove there)—and 59 per cent of the class answered ‘Yes,’ and having once admitted seeing the stove they proceeded to locate it, and tell in what part of the room it was."[3]

4. Francis Wellman, the famous trial lawyer, writes, "[I]t is easy to produce evidence that varies very widely from the exact truth. This is often done by overzealous practitioners by putting leading questions or by incorporating two questions into tone, the second a simple one, misleading the witness into a ‘yes’ for both, and thus creating an entirely false impression.[4]

B. Identification of the presuppositions of a complex question and clarifying what is at issue has much in common with "dividing the question" as is done in an application of the rules of order in conducting meetings:

"(1.) Dividing a question. When a motion embraces several parts, each of which forms substantially a separate proposition, the rsolution of it into distinct motions or questions is called dividing the question. (2.) Advantage of such division. It affords the assembly an opportunity to recieve or to reject what part it thinks proper …"[5]

Page 77: legal technique and logic

C. The technique of resolving complex questions is also similar to understanding the need for a "line-item veto" where particular provisions of a list can be vetoed without rejecting all provisions of a proposal.

F. Occasionally, the fallacy of complex question is simply an unwarranted assumption in an argument and a question (i.e., an interrogative sentence) is not present in the passage.

For example, in Barack Obama's primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice condemned Clinton's policy of Iraq and Iran by demanding an "explanation of how and why she got those critical judgements wrong."[6]

G. Rarely, the fallacy occurs with the presuppositions of the question explicitly stated in separate statement as in this example:

"Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote recently: ‘It is the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks ‘millionaires and billionaires.’ Who regularly makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the other—the good Americans. How's that for presidential tone?’"[7]

II. The assumption or presupposition to a complex question can only be known from the context. Not all cases where something not generally granted is assumed are fallacious because not all such passages involve arguments.

A. E.g., a prosecutor demands from a defendant, "Did you commit the murder before or after you bought the soft drink?"

Here, no argument is being given, so no fallacy occurs. Obviously, the whole sense of the question changes if the prosecutor is asking the question just after the defendant confessed to the murder.

B. The classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would not be a fallacy unless explicitly or implicitly the speaker is assuming without evidence that you beat your wife, and this is the very point he wishes to draw as a conclusion. It's difficult to construct this example in such a way that a fallacy, instead of a rhetorical technique, occurs. This interrogative sentence, often used as a defining example of the fallacy of complex question is not a fallacy unless it occurs as a premise in an argument.

C. As an example of "unpacking" presuppositions of a question, analyze what is being assumed in the following example sentence:

"What church do you and your family attend?"

Page 78: legal technique and logic

The main presupposition can be listed as follows.

1. You attend church.2. You have a family.3. Your family attends church.4. You and your family attend the same church.

III. Assorted examples of the fallacy of complex question:

"If a choice must be made, I'll adopt God's nonexistence as a working assumption. If I am mistaken, I hope He is not offended by my demand for evidence. (Many believers seem to think that God is offended by atheists. Is he overly proud or merely insecure?)"[8].

"When software programs are trying to outsmart other software programs and hack the world's trading platforms, that is a recipe for disaster.… How many times an hour are there failures across individual equities around the world because of software running algorithms battling each other for supremacy to make a profitable trade? We have no idea."[9].

"Look very closely. You will see that no person and no circumstance can prevent you from becoming a self-understanding man or woman. Who is stopping you at this very moment? No one."[10].

The following passage on the problem of redistribution is discussing whether people should be paid on how hard they try, rather than rewarding those with natural ability:

"How hard you're willing to work is powerfully influenced by how much skill nature has given you and thus how much chance you have of achieving a satisfying success. The case for redistribution is not without its troubles: Anyone who says that what nature has given you has nothing to do with what you should be allowed to keep must ultimately answer questions like why couples who produce beautiful children shouldn't be made to give some of them to parents who can only turn out ugly ducklings." [11]

Page 79: legal technique and logic

IV. Nonfallacious examples of complex question are usually rhetorical techniques, as explained above. Again for a fallacy to occur an argumentmust be present.1

A. If a question's presuppositions are legitimately assumed by all parties, and the presuppositions are all relevant, then no fallacy has been committed.

B. Fallacy Practice: Analyze the following passages and state whether or not the fallacy of complex question has occurred.

1. "An almost equally exasperating aspect of the autonomy struggle is the toddler's inability to make choices. The parent asks whether the child wants a cookie or a lollipop. First the child says, ‘Cookie,’ but as soon as he gets the cookie, he wants a lollipop. The parent patiently takes away the cookie and gives the toddler a lollipop, but now the child wants the cookie again. The problem is that the child wants the right to choose, but does not want to make a choice. From the child's point of view, he does not have a choice unless he can choose them both."[12]

2. "Shoppers at F.W. Woolworth Co.'s stores might detect one means of a company minimizing its borrowing needs. According to Ellis Smith, executive vice president of finance, the company ‘hardly acknowledges’ it own charge system. The first question our people are instructed to ask is, ‘Is the purchase cash?’ If it isn't, the second question is ‘Is this Visa or Master Charge?’"[13]

3. "Agence France-Presse concluded its story by noting, ‘Studies have described a rise in the prevalence of mental disorders in China, some of them linked to stress as the pace of life becomes faster and socialist support systems falter.’ There [sic] is sheer preposterous propaganda. What ’study‘ could possibly prove that stress regarding ‘the pace of life’ and the decline of ’socialist support systems‘ (whatever they are) had increased mental illness? Western intellectuals, very much including the press, are still in love with socialism—even its communist variant."[14]

4. "Concerning the July 16 Cover Story, ‘The Euro's Fate’ Is that the best Europe can do? Print, print, print money; destroy the middle class by crushing savers and stoking inflation; enforce unnaturally low interest rates that only serve to provide cover for irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next several generations that will be impoverished with debt." [15]

Page 80: legal technique and logic

5. "There is a tale, probably apocryphal, told of that notoriously merry monarch Charles II. There was a dinner to commemorate the foundation of the Royal Society. At the end of the evening, ‘with the peculiar gravity of countenance which he usually wore on such occasions,’ he put a challenge to the Fellows. ‘Suppose two pails of water were fixed in two different scales that were equally poised, and which weighted equally alike, and that two live bream, or small fish, were put into either of these pails.‘ He wanted to know the reason why that pail, with such additions should not weigh more than the other pail which stood against it. Many suggested possible explanations, and argued for their own suggestions with more or less vigour. But at last one who perhaps remembered that the motto of that great society is ‘Nullium in verba’ (Take no man's word for it!) denied the assumption: ‘It would weigh more.’ The King was delighted: ‘Odds fish, brother, you are in the right.’"[16]

6. "Romney did what he has done when in trouble in the past. He lashed out. ‘Do you want four more years with 23 million people out of work or underemployed?’ he asked. ‘Do you want four more years where incomes go down every single year? You want four more years with gasoline prices doubling? Do you want four more years with unemployment above 8 percent?‘ Romney was shouting, jabbing his finger in the air."[17]

7. "Bion, that was an atheist, was showed in a port city, in a temple of Neptune, many tables of pictures, of such as had in tempests made their vows to Neptune, and were saved from shipwreck: and was asked, ‘How say you not? Do you not acknowledge the power of the gods?’ But he said, ‘Yes, but where are they painted that have been drowned after their vows?’"[18]

8. " Joe, let's take a look at what is happening for you in the group. Here you are, after two months, not feeling good about yourself in this group and with several members impatient with you (or intimidated, or avoidant, or angry, or annoyed, or feeling seduced or betrayed). What's happened? Is this a familiar place for you? Would you be willing to take a look at your role in bringing this to pass?"[19]

9. "Cutting your next year's budget by 2% but still having it up 4% from this year and calling it a ‘cut’ is ludicrous. [The suggestion is] our leaders must kick the deficit-reduction can down the road one more time. I ask: When exactly will it be a good time to have economic contraction?"[20]

Page 81: legal technique and logic

10."Is that the best Europe can do? Print, print, print money; destroy the middle class by crushing savers and stoking inflation; enforce unnaturally low interest rates that only serve to provide cover for irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next several generations that will be impoverished with debt[?]"

[21]

I.  False Cause:  the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection.  There are two basic interrelated kinds.

A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc:  (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.

1. I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal connection. E.g., consider "Since hair always precedes the growth of teeth in babies, the growth of hair causes the growth of teeth."

2. Consider also "Every severe recession follows a Republican Presidency; therefore Republicans are the cause of recessions."  Accidental generalizations need not always be causal relations.

B. Causal connections are difficult to establish; the nature of causality is an active area of inquiry in the philosophy of science.

C. Non causa pro causa:  (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect.  This is the general category of "false cause."

II. The informal structure of the fallacy is usually similar to one of the following.

Event   x   is related to (or is followed by) event   y .

Page 82: legal technique and logic

Event x caused event y.

or

Events of kind   x   are followed by events of kind   y .Events of kind x cause events of kind y.

III. Examples of false cause:

"We hear that a writer has just filed a two million dollar lawsuit against the Coors beer company for pickling his brain. It seems that he had been consuming large quantities of Coors' 3.2 beer, containing only 3.2 percent alcohol and so supposedly non-intoxicating, at his local tavern. But, the suit contends, the stuff was insidiously marinating his mind; and as a result he has been unable to finish writing his second novel. The author may have a point. But we have to wonder whether the damage was caused by the beer, or by the current fad of product liability suits." Wall Street Journal(02.14.79).

There are two cases of false cause here, but the second, theJournal's, is tongue-in-cheek

"Napoleon became a great emperor because he was so short."

(If this were a causal inference, then all short people would become emperors.)

"Dear ABBY:  If GOING BALD doesn't have any sighs of rash, or sores on her head, she should make a mixture of castor oil and sheep dung, and plaster it on her head every night.  (Tell her to wear a shower cap so she won't mess up her pillow.)  I started losing my hair after the birth of my child.  My grandmother gave me this remedy and it worked.  Index Journal (02.01.80).

"Defense attorney Ellis Rubin claims Ronald Zamora's constant exposure to TV crime shows such as re-runs of 'Kojak' and 'Police Woman' was responsible for 'diseasing his mind and impairing his behavior controls.'  'Without the influence of television ... there would not have been any crime,' Rubin argued."  Index Journal(08.13.77).

"When the telephone was first introduced to Saudi Arabia, some contended it was an

Page 83: legal technique and logic

instrument of the devil.  But others pointed out that, according to Moslem doctrine, the devil is incapable of reciting the Koran.  When several verses of the Koran were recited and heard over the phone, skeptics were convinced that the instrument wasn't evil." Wall Street Journal (11.11.79).

"Especially bothersome to some parents whose children have chest pain, are reports in the media of sudden death in what appeared to be otherwise healthy athletes.  There are many causes of chest pain in children.  The most common cause is called idiopathic chest pain.  Idiopathic means the cause is unknown.  One can only call chest pain idiopathic after they have ruled out other causes." Randy Robinson, M.D. "Family Practice Notes," Index Journal (n.d.).

IV. Establishing causality in science is difficult.  Usually if all A's are followed by B's then one suspect that A caused B.  But even this generalization could be a coincidence.  For the most part, causality is no longer used in science;  correlation is sought instead.