doubt.

Others merely try to show that their conclusions are

plausible or likely or probable to be true given the premise(s).
adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be The first kind of, argument is a deductive argument and the
applied prospectively in favor of parties who have second kind is an inductive argument. In other words,we are
relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good reasoning deductively when our premises intend to guarantee
faith in accordance therewith under the familiar the truth of our conclusion While we reason inductively when
rule of ”lax prospicit, mm respicz’t.” our premises are intended to provide good (but not conclusive)
evidence for the truth of our conclusion.44
To reiterate - burden of proof is the duty of the party
alleging to prove his claim. Evidence,on the other hand,is the Here are some examples of deductive reasoning:
means sancfioned under the Rules of Court in order f0 prove or
All misdemeanors are criminal oflenses;
establish a fact in a judicial proceeding. In order for such
Driving under the influence of alcohol is a
evidence to be appreciated by the Court and admitted by the
misdemeanor;
Court,it has to be relevant and material to the issue at hand.
Hence, driving under the influence of alcohol is a
criminal ofi'ense.
Evidence may either be through testimony of a witness or
through the presentation of an object or document. As far as If quartz scratches glass, then quartz is harder
presentation of Witnesses are concerned, the Rules require that than glass;
they and their testimonies undergo several examinations - a Quartz scratches glass;
direct,cross, re-direct and re-cross examinations - with the end in Therefore, quartz is harder than glass.
view to ascertaining its truthfulness and veracity.
Notice how the conclusions of these arguments are
We also have What we call precedents which refer to established by the premises with absolute certainty. Each
issues that have been laid to rest by previous judicial decisions. conclusion flows from its premises with logical necessity; this
This ensures not only the stability of the judicial process but also means that, given the premises, the conclusion could not
strengthens our justice system allowing for continuity. possibly be false.

There are times when we make an argument the

conclusion of which is not certain. This is not necessarily a
weakness for in many cases the most that we can expect of an
argument is to support its conclusion with a degree of
probability. Inductive arguments simply claim that their
conclusions are likely or probable given the premige's offered.

“Gregory Bassham, et.al., Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction (3"1 e d .

2008)
 Consider this example: from particular premises to general conclusions. Although this
is generally the case, it is wrong to use this as a basis of
Neil, a student in a Legal Logic class, has good distinguishing deduction from induction since there are
study habits and is always attentive in deductive arguments that move from particular to general and
class discussions; inductive arguments that move from general to particular.45
He is a consistent dean’s lister and has never
failed in any subject he has taken in law Consider these two examples:
school; and
Therefore, it is very probable that Neil will not fail Three is a prime number;
in his Legal Logic class. Five is a prime number;
Seven is a prime number; and
This is an inductive argument. Although it is a strong Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight
argument, it does not provide an absolute guarantee that Neil are prime numbers.
will not fail in his Legal Logic class. There is still a remote
possibility that he will fail in the subject. If the premises are true All of ].K. Rowling’s previous books have been
then the conclusion will very likely, or probably, be true; but the bestsellers.(general premise); and
truth of the premises cannot absolutely rule out the possibility Therefore, her next book will probably be a
that the conclusion will be false. In other words,the conclusion bestseller.(particular conclusion)
might turn out to be false even though the premises are true.
The first is a deductive argument but the reasoning moves
The following are some other examples of inductive from particular premises to a general conclusion, while the
arguments: second is an inductive argument but its reasoning flows from
general to particular. Thus, what makes an argument deductive
The car can’t start even though there is plenty of or inductive is not the pattern of particularity or generality in the
gasoline in the tank; and premises and conclusion. Rather, it is the type of support the
I t is likely that the battery is already exhausted. premises are claimed to provide for the conclusion.

To determine whether an argument is deductive or

In the last five years, the passing rate in the bar inductive, we can rely on indicator words that signal the kind of
exam has always been less than 25%; and claim the argument makes. For example,a phrase such as ”it
So we can say that this year’s successful bar necessarily follows that” almost always indicates that an
examinees will probably not go beyond argument is deductive. Here are some common deductive
25%. indicator words:

It is sometimes said that the basic difference between certainly it is logical to conclude that
deduction and induction is that deduction moves from general definitely this logically implies that
premises to particular conclusions, Whereas induction moves
45 Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (9th ed. 1994).
 absolutely this entails that the general law; the minor premise,the act, which does or does not
conclusively it must be the case that conform to the law; and the conclusion, acquittal or condemnation.”47

These are some common inductive indicator words:

But for all its power, the principle of the syllogism is
surprisingly straightforward: What is true of the universal is true
probably one would expect that of the particular. If we know that all torts are civil wrongs and
likely it is plausible to suppose that
defamation is a tort, therefore defamation is a civil wrong. It is
chances are it is reasonable to assume that no exaggeration to say that the syllogism lies at the heart of legal
writing. Consider these following examples:
When no indicator words are present to help us decide
whether an argument is deductive or inductive, we just have to
base our judgment on the content of the premises and conclusion The Constitution prohibits non-Filipinos to
of the argument — is the conclusion intended to follow with strict acquire or hold lands of the public domain;
necessity from the premises or is it intended to simply follow Signing this deed of sale will enable Mr. Iackson,
from the premises with a degree of probability? an American, to acquire the title of this
land of the public domain; and
In this chapter, we will concentrate on deductive Therefore, signing this deed of sale is
arguments and discuss inductive arguments in the next chapter. unconstitutional.

Syllogisms
Judicial power includes the power to determine
In logic, deductive arguments are often expressed in what whether or not there has been a grave abuse
we call ”syllogisms.” A syllogism is a three-line argument — that of discretion on the part of any branch or
is, an argument that consists of exactly two premises and a instrumentality of the Government;
conclusion. This form of reasoning is what is lurking below the The Supreme Court is granted judicial power; and
surface of most judicial opinions and briefs. Gottfried Leibniz Therefore, the Supreme Court has the power to
expressed the significance of the syllogism three hundred years determine whether or not there has been a
ago, calling its invention ”one of the most beautiful,and oneof the grave abuse of discretion on the part of any
most important, made by the human mind. ”46 The value of branch or instrumentality of the
syllogisms, particularly in legal reasoning, was also recognized
Government. '
by the eighteenth century reformer Cesare Beccaria who
expressly advocated that, in the area of criminal law, judges
should follow syllogistic line of arguing: ”In every criminal case, a
The President can grant amnesty to the military
judge should come to a perfect syllogism: the major premise should be
mutineers if there is a concurrgfice of a
majority of all the members of the
Congress;
46Gottfried
Leibnitz, New Essays Concerning Human Understanding. (trans by
AG. Langley, 1916).
‘7 Cesare Beccaria, “On Crimes and Punishment" (trans. David Young. 1986.)
 Less than half of the members of the Congress is in
favor of granting amnesty to the military b. All wars the inflict more harm than good are
mutineers; and unjust.
Therefore, the President cannot grant the said All nuclear wars inflict more harm than good.
amnesty. Therefore,all nuclear wars are unjust.

It is important that law students develop the habit of c. Mammals have lungs.
thinking in syllogisms. When briefing a case assigned in their Fish are mammals.
class, the skeleton of the deductive syllogism must poke through Therefore,fish have lungs.
in their description of the case’s rationale. Lawyers, Whenever
possible,must make the arguments in their briefs and memos in Below are examples of invalid arguments:
the form of syllogisms. A clear, well-constructed syllogism
ensures each conclusion is well-supported with evidence, and d. Fraud is a criminal offense;
gives the judge a recognizable basis to evaluate the strength of Amalilio committed a criminal 0132221363; and
the argument. Therefore, Amalilio committed fraud.

Being able to construct syllogisms is one skill, being able e. All felonies are criminal offenses.
to form good syllogisms is another skill. Not all syllogisms are All felonies are punishable by
logical. Deductive arguments may either be valid or invalid. incarceration.
What do we mean by valid and invalid arguments? Therefore, all criminal oflenses are
punishable by incarceration.
We have seen that all deductive arguments claim,
implicitly or explicitly, that their conclusions follow necessarily f. Chinese are Asians.
from their premises. However,some deductive arguments have Americans are not Chinese.
conclusions which do not follow necessarily from their premises. Therefore, Americans are not Asians.
These arguments are invalid deductive arguments. A valid
deductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion As the examples above show,the validity (or invalidity) of
really does follow necessarily from the premises. Put another arguments does not depend on the truth of the premises or the
way, a valid argument is an argument in which: if the premises conclusion. Argument c has obviously false premises and false
are true, then the conclusion must be true or the truth of the conclusion but it is valid. It should be emphasized,however,
premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. that no valid argument can have all true premises and a false
conclusion. This important truth follows from the very
These are examples of valid arguments: definition of a valid argument. Since a valid argument, by
definition,is an argument in which the conclusiori must be true
a. Insulators are not electric conductors. if the premises are true, no valid argument can have all true
Rubbers are insulators; and premises and a false conclusion.
Therefore, rubbers are not electric conductors.
 Looking at the examples of invalid arguments, we can
notice that invalid arguments may have true premises and a true A categorical statement is a statement that directly asserts
conclusion as can be seen in argument f. Again,these examples something or states a fact without any conditions. Its subject is
show that what determines the validity (or invalidity) of the simply affirmed or denied by the predicate. The following are
argument is not the truth (or falsity) of its premises or conclusion examples of categorical statements:
but the relationship between its premises and conclusion — that
is, whether the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises Senators are elected public ofi‘icials.
(or put another way, Whether the premises guarantee the truth of The Philippines is not a communist state.
the conclusion). Some crimes are against national security.
The Supreme Court has the sole power to admit
Thus,the basic question in determining the validity of an individuals to the practice of law.
argument is not: Is the premise true? Or is the conclusion true? Some oflenses are not public wrongs.
The basic question is: Does the conclusion follow necessarily
from the premises? (Or do the premises guarantee the truth of A hypothetical statement is a compound statement which
the conclusion?) If the answer is yes, then the argument is valid. contains a proposed or tentative explanation. A compound
If the answer is no, then the argument is invalid. statement consists of at least two clauses connected by
conjunctions, adverbs, etc, which express the relationship
It should be noted that the terms ”valid” or ”invalid” do between the classes as well as our assent to it. The clauses are
not apply to inductive arguments since inductive arguments, in simple statements or statements that contain one subject and one
the first place, do not claim that their conclusion follows from predicate. The following are examples of hypothetical
the premises with strict necessity (for that matter, all inductive statements:
arguments are technically invalid). Other terms of appraisal are
used for inductive arguments such as ”strong” and ”weak.” This If the country is in serious danger due to invasion
Will be discussed in the next chapter. or rebellion, the President can declare
Martial Law.
But how do we determine whether an argument is valid If a party to a contract fails to perform its
or invalid (that is, whether its conclusion necessarily follows obligations in the contract, then there is a
from its premises)? breach of contract.
The breach of contract is either actual or
Types of Syllogisms anticipatory.

To address this question,we need to first understand the Given the explanations of what categorical and
types of deductive arguments. Syllogisms are of two types: hypothetical statements are, we can now understand better
categorical and hypothetical. A categorical syllogism is a categorical and hypothetical syllogisms. The féllowing is a
syllogism composed of categorical statements alone while a categorical syllogism:
hypothetical syllogism includes ‘ both categorical and
hypothetical statements. Ciiy councillors are elected public ofiicials.
 Ieremy is not an elected public ofiicial.
Therefore, Ieremy is not a city councillor Here are some examples of negative statements:

Notice that every statement in the above syllogism is a No one is above the law.
categorical statement. Hypothetical syllogisms, however, The accused is not guilty of the crime.
contain a hypothetical statement usually located in its first
premise. The example below is a hypothetical syllogism: Quantity: the quantity of a statement is either
universal or particular. The statement is universal when
If a false statement is not intended to deceive or what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is its
mislead anyone, the statement is not whole extension; the statement is particular when what is
fraudulent. being affirmed or denied of the subject is just a part of its
Mrs. Lim had no intention of deceiving her extension. Usually there are quantifiers that help determine
supervisor. the quantity of the statement. For universal statements we
Therefore, Mrs. Lim’s statement, though false, usually have:
was not fraudulent.
all no
We will first deal with categorical syllogisms and then every none
with hypothetical syllogisms. each

Categorical Syllogisms For particular statements we have:

Properties of a Categorical Statement some almost all

most not all
We can better understand categorical syllogisms and their several many
validity if we understand well the nature of categorical few
statements. Every categorical statement has quality and
quantity as its properties. The following are examples of universal statements:

Quality: the quality of the statement may be affirmative or All senatorial candidates must be at least 35 years
negative. A statement that has the terms ”no,” ”not,” ”none” and of age on the day of the elec'tz'on.
”never” is negative. In the absence of such qualifiers, the All law students are holders of a bachelor’s degree.
statement is affirmative. N0 statutes that are in conflict with the
Constitution are valid.
Here are some examples of affirmative statements:
The following are examples of particular statements:
Some crimes are punishable by imprisonment.
The accused denied the charges against him. Some acts of vigilantism are justified.
 Not all senatorial candidates are eligible to run.
Some criminal ofi‘enses are heinous crimes. Minor term (8) — the subject of the conclusion (also
called the subject term)
Quantity of the Predicate
Major term (P) — the predicate of the conclusion
The predicate term has its own quantity, which is not (also called the predicate term)
identical to nor dependent on the quantity of the subject term.
In determining the quantity of the predicate two rules must be Middle term (M) — the term found in both premises
observed. and serves to mediate between the minor and
the major terms
Predicate of an affirmative statement is generally
parficular. However,in statements where the subject and the There are three kinds of statements in a categorical
predicate are identical, the predicate is universal. syllogism:

The predicate of a negative statement is always universal. Minor premise — the premise which contains the
minor term
In the following statements, the predicates are particular:
Major premise — the premise which contains the
The Philippines is a democratic country. minor term
Some senators are oppositionists.
Conclusion - the statement the premises support
In the following statements, the predicates are universal:
Here are two examples that illustrate the different terms
Manny Villar did not win in the 2010 presidential and statements in a categorical syllogism:
election.
Some senators are not lawyers. M P
A mother is a female parent. (Although this All torts are civil wrongs. (major premise)
statement is afirmative, the subject and-
the predicate are identical.) S M
Negligence is a tori. (minor premise)
Parts of a Categorical Syllogism
S P
As mentioned earlier, a categorical syllogism is a Therefore, negligence is a civil wrong. (conclusion)
deductive argument consisting of three categorical statements
that together contain exactly three terms,each of which occurs in P - M
exactly two of the constituent statements. There are three kinds All contracts with vague terms are void. (major premise)
of terms in a categorical syllog-ism:
 S M fails to serve its function of mediating between the major and
This contract is not void. (minor premise) minor terms. The violation of this rule is called the fallacy of
exclusive premises.
S P
Therefore, this contract does not contain vague terms. Thus,we can say that even if, in the first syllogism, both of
(conclusion) the premises are true it does not follow that the Philippines is a
capitalist country. It may have a mixed economy. In the same
Note that both syllogisms above are valid syllogisms. way, the line of reasoning in the third item is wrong because
They will serve as our examples of valid categorical syllogisms even if it is true that Civil offenses are not criminal offenses,and
for the next section which gives us the rules in determining let us say Alms-giving is not a criminal offense, we cannot
whether the categorical syllogisms are valid or invalid. conclude that Alms-giving is a civil offense.

Rules for the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms

Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain two negative premises. The terms in the syllogism must have exactly the same
meaning and must be used in exactly the same way in each
No socialist country is capitalist. occurrence. A term that has different meanings in its occurrences
The Philippines is not socialist. is an equivocal term. A univocal term has the same meaning in
Therefore,it is a capitalist country. different occurrences. In our two examples of valid syllogisms,
each pair of terms has the same meaning.
No military action whose harmfid ejj‘ects cannot
be controlled is morally permissible. Examine the following examples:
All military uses of biological weapons are
military actions whose harmful efi‘ects What is natural is good.
cannot be controlled. To make a mistake is natural.
Therefore, no military uses of biological weapons Therefore, to make a mistake is good.
. are morally permissible.
The Congress can create or abolish laws.
Civil ojj‘enses are not criminal offenses. The law of supply and demand is a law.
Slander is not a criminal offense. Therefore, the Congress can abolish the law of
Therefore, slander is a civil oflense. supply and demand.

Are the three syllogisms valid? The only valid syllogism is Selling cigarettes to a person below 18 years of age
the second. The other two violate the first rule and,thus, are is unlawful. '
invalid. It can be observed that both of the premises in each That store sold cigarettes to a student below 18
syflogism are negative statements. The rationale behind this rule years of age.
is that when the premises are both negative, the middle term Therefore, the store has violated the law.
 particular in both premises it might stand for a different portion
Which syllogisms above are invalid? The first and the
of its extension in each occurrence and, thus, be equivalent to
second. In the first argument,the term ”natural” is used with two two terms, and, therefore, fail to fulfill its function of uniting or
different meanings: as something pure(not artificial) and as
separating the minor and major terms. Such violation is called
something normal or usual. In the second example, the term the fallacy of particular middle.
”law” has two different, usages in the first and second premises.
In the third syllogism, each of the terms has been used in the Notice that in the third syllogism which is a valid
same sense. What is meant by ”below 18 years of age” in the first
syllogism, the middle term (”military'actions the intentionally kill
premise is the same as in the second premise.
civilians”) is Universal in the first premise,although particular in
the second premise. To determine if the middle term is universal
The violation of the second rule is called the fallacy of or particular, refer to the discussion on the quantity of the
equivocation. Equivocation usually occurs in the middle term. statement and predicate.

Rule 3: The middle term must be universal a t least once.

However,there is an exception to this rule. Even if the
middle term is particular in both premises,but it is quantified by
Most mayors have political parties. ”most” in both premises and the conclusion is quantified by
Mr. Herms is a mayor. ”some,” the syllogism does not violate this third rule. This is so
Therefore, Mr. Herras has a political party. since the combined extension of the middle term is more than a
universal.48 For example:
Libel is a form of defamation. Most mayors have political parties.
Reyes’ untrue accusation is a form of defamation. Most mayors are corrupt.
Therefore,Reyes’ untrue accusation is a libel. Therefore,some people who have political parties
are corrupt.

N0 military actions that intentionally kill Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term
innocent civilians are just. in the premise must also be universal.
Some Malaysian military actions in Sabah'
intentionally killed innocent civilians. Examine the following arguments:
Therefore, some Malaysian military actions were All lawyers read the Philippine Déily Inquirer.
not just. All lawyers are literate.
Therefore, all who read the Philippine Daily
much syllogisms here are invalid? The first two examples Inquirer are literate.
above since they both violate Rule 3. Notice that their middle
terms are particular in both premises. The middle term in the
All acts that inflict more harm than good are
first item is ”mayor” and in the second it is ”form of defamation.”
unjust.
The reason for this rule is that when the middle term is
48 Edgardo A. Reyes, Logic: Simplified and Integrated (Rev. e d . 1988).
 All terrorist acts inflict more harm than good.
Therefore, all terrorist acts are unjust.
Conditional Syllpgisms
Felonies are criminal offenses.
Misdemeanors are not felonies. The conditional syllogism is a syllogism in which the
Therefore, misdemeanors are not criminal offenses. major premise is a conditional statement.

Only the second argument above is valid. In the first A conditional statement is a compound statement which
syllogism, the minor term ”those who read the Philippine Daily asserts that one member (the then clause) is true on condition
Inquirer" is universal in the conclusion but particular in the J-LAI-
LllaI.
LLA
LllC
ALLnsom
UUICL
Mn
LLlClllber
(LL-hrs
\UIC
1£nlnqinn\
ll LladDC}
11--
1°
‘N1
uue.1'u1
En M nvam‘fllo
CAQlllyle,
T‘;
L1 1!.

premise. Such violation is called the fallacy of illicit minor. rains,then the ground will be wet. The if clause or its equivalent
is called the antecedent, while the then clause or its equivalent is
In the third example,the major term “criminal offenses” is called the consequent.
universal in the conclusion but particular in the premise. Such a
violation is called the fallacy of illicit major. What is important in the conditional statement is the
sequence between the antecedent and the consequent,that is, the
The rationale behind this rule is that in a deductive
truth of the consequent follows upon the fulfillment of the
argument the conclusion should not go beyond what the
condition stated in the antecedent. It does not matter whether
premises state. Thus, the conclusion must not b e wider in
extension than the premises. individually the antecedent or consequent is true or false; what
matters is the relationship between them.
Again, to determine if the major term or minor term is
universal (or particular), refer to the discussion on the quantity The statement - If the Philippines is in Asia, then
of the statement and predicate. Melchora Aquino is a Filipina does not make sense although
each clause, taken singly, is true. The Philippines is indeed in
Hypothetical Syllogisms Asia and Melchora Aquino is a Filipina. But the fact that
Melchora Aquino is a Filipina is not a consequent of the
A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism that contains a Philippines being in Asia. On the other hand, the statement If
hypothetical statement as one of its premises. Hypothetical Melchora Aquino is not an Asian,then she is not a Filipino is a
syllogisms are of three kinds: true statement although the clauses, taken singly, are false. The
statement is true because being an Asian is essential to being a
conditional syllogism Filipino.
disjunctive syllogism
conjunctive syllogism Conditional statements can be expressed not only in if-
then clauses but also m a wide variety of different sentences. For
Since in legal reasoning, we often encounter conditional example:
arguments,we will focus on conditional syllogisms.
 If one of the grantees changes his/her mind, then
Being a teenager these days means that you have
you will get the scholarship.
to face a tremendous amount of peer
pressure.
The conditional syllogism can be symbolized by the
following:
The fact that she is a native of Bohol implies that
she knows where the chocolate hills are.
A — for the antecedent
C - for the consequent
Anyone who cheers for Ginebm must be a Mark
~ - for the negation of the statement
Caguioa fan. > — for ”implies”
— for ”therefore”
Unless you are born again by water and Spirit,
you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Rules for Conditional Syllogisms

Whenever heavy rains pour in Sampaloc, Espamz There are two valid forms of conditional syllogisrns.
Avenue is flooded. When the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion
must affirm the consequent. This form is called modus ponens.
In case one of the grantees changes his/her mind,
you will get the scholarship. If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A >C
nmmw. A
If we write these statements in the if-then forms,we can Therefore, the ground it wet. C
see that their meaning remains the same.
When the minor premise denies the consequent, the
If you are a teenager these days, then you must conclusion must deny the antecedent. This form is called
face a tremendous amount of peer pressure. modus tollens.

If she is a native of Bohol, then she knows where {fit rains, then the ground will be wet. A>C
the chocolate hills are. The ground is not wet. ~C
Therefore, it did not rain. ~A
If he cheers for Ginebm, then he must be a Mark
Caguioa fan. A conditional syllogism is invalid if the minor premise
denies the antecedent. This invalid form is called the fallacy of
If you are not born again by water and spirit, then denying the antecedént.
you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
0 If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A >C
‘99“ U8 *hea 0y rains Po u r in Sam Paloc, then EsPam: I t did not min. ~A
7% Ave.- is flcoded. Therefore, the ground is not wet. ~C
 The first and the fourth syllogisms here are valid. The first
follows the modus tollens form, and the fourth follows the
The minor premise affirms the consequent. This invalid
modus ponens form.
form is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
However,the second and fluid syllogisms are invalid. In
Ifit rains, then the ground will be wet. A > C
the second syllogism, where the fallacy of affirming the
The <gmund is wet. C consequent is committed, even if both premises are true, we
Therefore,it rained. A cannot be certain that the conclusion is also true since there are
other prerequisites to be eligible to vote such as citizenship and
Examine the following conditional syllogisms. Which of having registered as a voter. Your cousin may have met the age
these are valid,which are invalid? requirement but he may have failed to register with the
COMELEC. The third is also invalid having committed the
If he fired the gun, then he should have fallacy of denying the antecedent. The defendant may know that
gunpowder residue on his clothing or skin. the statement is untrue but the supposed victim did not actually
According to the medico-legal examination, there rely on the statement that was made (which is another essential
was no trace of gunpowder residue on any criterion to prove there was a fraud).
part of his body and clothing.
Therefore, he did not fire the gun. Enthymemes

If you are eligible to vote, then you must be 18 We do not often find these syllogistic forms of arguing in
years and above, legal writing. Legal opinions and memorandums are not written
My cousin is above 18 years of age. in such a formal structure consisting of two premises and a
Therefore, my cousin is eligible to vote. conclusion. However,most legal arguments actually follow the
syllogisfic reasoning; we only have to analyze deeper the
If the defendant has no knowledge that his arguments to excavate the syllogisms. One logician notes that
statement is untrue, he cannot be guilty of ”an argument’s basic structure...may be obscured by. an excess
fraud. of verbiage...But an argument’s structure may also be obscured
The defendant knows that his statement is untrue. for us... because it is too Sparse and has missing components.
Therefore, he is guilty of fraud. Such arguments may appear sounder than they are because we
are unaware of important assumptions made by them.. ."49
If he was in the United States when the crime
happened, then he cannot commit the
Consider this one-sentence argument penned by Justice
Blackmun in his Roe vs.Wade Opinion:
crime.
It was proven that he was in the United States at
that time.
Therefore, he cannot have committed the crime.
‘9 3 . Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies 20
(1994) ‘
 ”This right of privacy, whether it be founded in part being ”understood” or only ”in the mind,” is called an
the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty ”enthymeme.”
a n d restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as
the District Court determined, in the Ninth In ordinary legal discourse,arguments and inferences are
Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad expressed enthymematically. The reason is easy f0 understand.
enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not A large body of legal statements can be presumed to be common
to terminate her pregnancy.”50 knowledge, and legal practitioners save themselves trouble by
not repeating well-known and perhaps trivially true
Lying below the surface of Justice Blackmun’s argument is propositions that their listeners and readers can perfectly well be
the following syllogism: expected to supply for themselves.51 Moreover, it is not at all
unusual for a legal argument to be rhetorically more powerful
The right of privacy is guaranteed by the and persuasive when stated enthemematically than when
Fourteenth or Ninth Amendment. enunciated in complete detail. As Aristotle wrote in his Rhetoric,
A woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy is ”Speeches that rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause.”
protected by the right of privacy.
Therefore, a woman’s decision whether to In each of the following enthymemes,can you supply the
terminate her pregnancy is protected by the missing premise:
Fourteenth or Ninth Amendment.
Ramon has a fixed design to kill Karl as evidenced
Sometimes it is more than a matter of rearranging by Ramon’s love letter to Karl’s wife.
sentences and rephrasing statements to match up with the Therefore, Ramon has probably killed Karl.
syllogistic form. Sometimes a legal writer doesn’t mention all
parts of the syllogism, leaving one to read between the lines. One Manuel has been seen running away from a
may justify the conclusion that the Cybercrime Prevention Act is building where a burglar alarm is ringing.
unconstitutional by mentioning only one premise: the Manuel is more likely to be theburglar.
Cybercrime Prevention Act infringes on our freedom of
expression. The argument is incomplete, but it can easily be In the first passage, the missing premise is: One who has a
completed and assessed with regard to it validity by supplying fixed design to kill is more likely to kill. In the other argument,what
the missing premise: a law is unconstitutional if it infringes on was only implicitly stated was: People who flee from the scene of
our freedom of expression. a crime are more likely guilty than if they did not flee.

Logicians are certainly aware that an argument can be Polysyllogisms

founded on a syllogism although not all parts of the syllogism
are expressed. This kind of argument that is stated incompletely, Aside from not explicitly expressing arguments and
Opinions in standard syllogisms, legal writers also have the
5°
Ruggero J . Aldisert, yogic fog Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking 62 (3rd 5‘
ed. 1997) (quoting Justlce Blackmun, 4 1 0 us. 113, 153 (1974)). Ruggero J . Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking (3rd ed.
1997).