234672149-legal-technique-and-logic-premises-inference-and-conclusions.docx

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

 PROPOSITION – refers to the meaning of a sentence that makes a claim; that is a statement; that can be either true or false.  It is usually expressed by declarative sentences THE OBVIOUS REASON? They are good for declaring that things are so or not so EXAMPLE: Our current President has thick hair. AND NOT: I really find Presidents with thick hair so cute. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARGUMENT - is an example of reasoning in which one or more propositions (or statements) are offered as support, justification, grounds, reasons, or evidence for another proposition.  It is not a quarrel or dispute, but an example of reasoning in which one or more propositions are offered  PREMISES - They simply are the supporting statements which aim to make the conclusion ACCEPTABLE.  CONCLUSION – expresses or affirms the MAIN POINT of the argument  PREMISES – endeavors to JUSTIFY the point made in the conclusion EXAMPLE: “One night, I woke up with a realization that my boyfriend is a tadpole. You see, tadpoles can swim – and my boyfriend is a magnificent swimmer.”  The POINT of the argument is the claim, “MY BOYFRIEND IS A TADPOLE. “  This is the CONCLUSION of the argument.  We should just all accept my claim that “MY BOYFRIEND IS A TADPOLE” because my argument provides for two reasons or justifications: 1.) Tadpoles can swim, and 2.) My boyfriend is a magnificent swimmer. These two reasons, justifying why the conclusion should be accepted, are the PREMISES of the argument.

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

 Arguments are usually presented in their bare forms (i.e their structure) AFTER the premises and conclusion are identified.  WHY? So we could better understand the arguments, especially how the premises provide support to the conclusion  WHY AGAIN? To know better why we should accept or deny the conclusion of the argument “One night, I woke up with a realization that my boyfriend is a tadpole. You see, tadpoles can swim – and my boyfriend is a magnificent swimmer.” The structure is: PREMISE1 (P1) - All tadpoles can swim. PREMISE2 (P2) – My boyfriend can swim (a magnificent swimmer in fact) ________________________________________ CONCLUSION (C) – My boyfriend is a tadpole.  P stands for premise  C for conclusion  P is usually accompanied by a number signifying the order of the premises in the argument while C is always presented after the premises. Presenting the structure this way will make the task of evaluating the validity or soundness of arguments much easier.  EXAMPLE is INVALID. It is not only INVALID, - it is also not SOUND. (of course it is not the ability to swim that necessarily makes him a tadpole, but a lot more other essential attributes.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

EXAMPLE: “Because we want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that deters would-be-criminals from committing crimes – because we want to protect the defenseless and the innocent, not the criminals – because no one wants to waver in bringing back the peace and security in our community’s streets – and because the only way to deter would-be rapists, would-be murderers and many other would-be brutal criminals is to invoke the penalty of death – ladies and gentlemen, the death penalty law, must therefore, never – I repeat, never, be abolished.” PREMISE INDICATORS  Since  Because  For  As  Inasmuch as  For the reason that  First,… CONCLUSION INDICATORS  Therefore  Hence  Thus  I conclude that…  So  Consequently  It follows that  One may infer that  One may conclude that

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

 P1 “Because we want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that deters would-be-criminals from committing crimes” – P2 “Because we want to protect the defenseless and the innocent, not the criminals” – P3 “Because no one wants to waver in bringing back the peace and security in our community’s streets” – and P4 “Because the only way to deter would-be rapists, would-be murderers and many other would-be brutal criminals is to invoke the penalty of death” – C “ladies and gentlemen, the death penalty law, must therefore, never – I repeat, never, be abolished.” THE BARE FORM P1 – We want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that deters would-be-criminals from committing crimes; P2 – We want to protect the defenseless and the innocent, not the criminals; P3 – We want to bring back the peace and security in our community’s streets; P4 – The only way to deter would-be rapists, would-be-murderers and many other would-be-brutal criminals is to invoke the penalty o death, _____________________________________________________________ C – The death penalty, must never be abolished LIMITATIONS OF INDICATORS  Sometimes premise or conclusion indicators may be present in a sentence but they do not really indicate that the sentence is a proposition (hence, not a premise or a conclusion.) EXPLANATIONS  “My classmate is absent today because of severe diarrhea compounded with severe dysmenorrhea.”  “I’m feeling so in love today because my seatmate is so pretty.”  THESE ARE NOT ARGUMENTS, BUT MERE EXPLANATIONS. ARGUMENTS JUSTIFY WHY SOMETHING SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. COGITO, ERGO, SUM “I can doubt everything, except the fact that I think when I doubt. When I think, I, as the thinker, must necessarily exist. I think, I exist.” – Descartes

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT  “I can doubt everything, except the fact that I think when I doubt. When I think, I, as the thinker, must necessarily exist. I think, I exist.”  I exist because when I doubt, I necessarily think.  I exist because I think it is necessary for me to exist. THE CONCLUSION? “I exist.”  It is impossible for thinking to occur without a thinker, doubting without a doubter.  IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO EVALUATE IF SOMETHING HAS BEEN CLAIMED, OR IF SOMETHING HAS BEEN OFFERED TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE OR FALSE RATHER THAN RELY TOO MUCH ON INDICATORS.  Propositions are expressed by sentences, but sentences are not the same with propositions (there could be more than one propositions in a sentence.  There could be a proposition without an argument, but there is no argument without propositions.  It is the function which a proposition serves in an argument that determines whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If the proposition provides support to another proposition, then that proposition is a premise. The proposition that receives the support of the premise is the conclusion.  For something to be considered an argument, it should contain at least three propositions (at least one conclusion and two premises).  For a proposition to be considered a conclusion, it should have other supporting propositions as its premises.  For a proposition to be considered a premise, it should provide support to other propositions as its conclusion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

 INFERENCE – is the reasoning process  NATURE OF REASONING: Logic is the science of correct thinking. It starts with ideas and terms and leads to the formation of judgment and proposition. Using judgment (not verbally expressed) and proposition (expressed) it proceeds to the intellectual activity called the reasoning process of INFERENCE.  INFERENCE – any process by which the mind proceeds from one or more propositions to other propositions seen to be implied in the former.  It signifies the operation by which the mind gets new knowledge by drawing out the implications of what it already knows. NOTION OF INFERENCE  This is the process in which from a sequence of propositions, we arrive at a CONCLUSION. The mind proceeds from one proposition to other propositions.  It is the mental process of comparing two concepts with a common third term in order to establish agreement or disagreement with each other. PARTS OF AN INFERENCE  The word INFERENCE is applied to a series of propositions so arranged that one, called the CONSEQUENT flows with logical necessity from one or more others, called the ANTECEDENT.  ANTECEDENT – that which goes before (antecedo)  CONSEQUENT – that which follows after or that which is inferred by the antecedent (consequor) The Relation of the Antecedent and the Consequent -

The truth of the antecedent entails the truth of the consequent.

-

The falsity of the consequent entails the falsity of the antecedent. In other words: If the antecedent is true, the consequent is true. If the consequent is false, the antecedent is false. If the antecedent is false, the consequent is doubtful. If the consequent is true, the antecedent is doubtful.

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

CONSEQUENCE – SEQUENCE  Known as the “heart of the inference”  The connection by virtue of which the consequent flows with logical necessity from the antecedent.  Usually signified by the terms: -

Therefore

-

Hence

-

For this reason

-

Consequently

-

Thus

-

Accordingly

-

So ANTECEDENT refers to the PREMISES and the CONSEQUENT refers to the CONCLUSION.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

EXAMPLE  “Crimes are evil acts. But murder is a crime. Therefore, murder is an evil act.” Crimes are evil acts. – ANTECEDENT But murder is a crime. – “Crime” appears twice. Common third term. Sequential relation. Therefore murder is an evil act. – CONSEQUENT  “Crimes are evil acts. But murder is a crime. Therefore, murder is an evil act.”  There are three terms:  CRIMES – appears twice in the premises. This term establishes a sequential relation between the two premises.  EVIL ACTS  MURDER -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------KINDS OF INFERENCE  Inference is either Immediate or Mediate.  IMMEDIATE INFERENCE – A short-cut way of reasoning process passing directly from one proposition, without the aid of a second proposition or a third term, to a new proposition but not a new truth.  Crimes are evil acts. Therefore, crimes are evil acts.  Consists in passing directly, without the intermediacy of a middle term or a second proposition, from one proposition to a new proposition that is a partial or complete reformulation of the very same truth expressed in the original proposition.  Strictly speaking, it does not involve the advancement of knowledge because the consequent is only the reformulation f the truth expressed in the antecedent.  Dogs are animals; Therefore some animals are dogs.

Legal Technique and Logic

PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law

aiza ebina/2014

 MEDIATE INFERENCE – A process of reasoning whereby the mind passes from two propositions which are called premises to a new proposition called CONCLUSION, through the mediation of a common third term called the MIDDLE TERM. The mind then arrives at a new truth.  It draws a conclusion from two propositions and does involve an advancement in knowledge.  This reasoning process or inference is called a SYLLOGISM. STRUCTURE OF SYLLOGISM  Consists of three declarative sentences; TWO PREMISES and ONE CONCLUSION.  Crimes are evil acts. But murder is a crime. Therefore, murder is an evil act.  Every animal is mortal; but every dog is an animal.; therefore, every dog is mortal. SYNOPSIS  IMMEDIATE INFERENCE -

Passes from one preposition;

-

without medium;

-

to a new proposition but not to a new truth

MEDIATE INFERENCE -

Passes from two propositions;

-

through a medium;

-

not only to a new proposition but also to a new truth

--------------------------------------------------------------- -END--------------------------------------------------------------------