Scribd
Upload
310 views

Deductive Inductive Syllogism

This document discusses deductive and inductive reasoning, and their applications in law. It provides examples of: 1) Deductive reasoning uses premises that necessarily lead to a conclusion. In law, it is used through syllogisms and enthymemes. 2) Inductive reasoning uses samples to make broader generalizations that are probable but not certain. In law, it is used through analogical arguments to determine applicable rules and facts. 3) Various logical forms are discussed, including categorical syllogisms, hypothetical syllogisms, conditional syllogisms, polysyllogisms, inductive generalization, and analogical arguments. Specific legal cases and principles are referenced.

Uploaded by

Raquel Ching
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
310 views

Deductive Inductive Syllogism

This document discusses deductive and inductive reasoning, and their applications in law. It provides examples of: 1) Deductive reasoning uses premises that necessarily lead to a conclusion. In law, it is used through syllogisms and enthymemes. 2) Inductive reasoning uses samples to make broader generalizations that are probable but not certain. In law, it is used through analogical arguments to determine applicable rules and facts. 3) Various logical forms are discussed, including categorical syllogisms, hypothetical syllogisms, conditional syllogisms, polysyllogisms, inductive generalization, and analogical arguments. Specific legal cases and principles are referenced.

Uploaded by

Raquel Ching
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

I.

Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning

DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Form of reasoning in which; argument’s premise provides sufficient evidence to the conclusion
Formal form of logic
Implicative relation between premise and conclusion is present
Ex. All men are mortal (premise)
Ram is a man (premise)
Therefore Ram is mortal (conclusion)
*in this argument, the premise provides suffcient evidence to the conclusion

Deductive reasoning in law:


used in apellate court where the judge sees that whether the trial court judge has applied correct law or
not. And then the judge gives the judgement after examining the legal principles.

INDUCTIVE REASONING
Form or reasoning in which; argument’s premise does not provide sufficient evidence to the conclusion
Non-formal form of logic
it is the process of building a hypothesis, a theory about a general rule, from the evidence available that
both supports that theory and contradicts competing theories. The more evidence there is available, the
higher the probability that the conclusion, the general rule, will be correct, but this can never be known
for certain.
Implicative relation between premise and conclusion is absent
Implication - the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.

II. Deductive Reasoning in Law


a. Syllogisms
 criminal offenses are unlawful
 theft is a criminal offense
 therefore theft is unlawful.
‘major premise’, a general statement that is known to be true

SYLLOGISM
i. Types of Syllogism
1. Categorical Syllogism
A statement that directly asserts something or states a fact without any conditions.
the quality of statement may be affirmative or negative. Quantity properties: the quantity of
statement may be universal (when what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is its
whole extension) or particular (when what is being affirmed or denied of the subject is just a part
of its extension).

RULES FOR THE VALIDITY OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS Rule 1. The syllogism must not
contain 2 negative premises. Rule 2. There must be three pairs of univocal terms. Rule 3. The
middle term must be universal at least once. Rule 4. If the term in the conclusion is universal,
the same term in the premise must also be universal.

1. MINOR TERM (SUBJECT) 2. MAJOR TERM (PREDICATE) 3. MIDDLE TERM Minor term –
subject of the conclusion (also called Subject Term) Major term – predicate of the conclusion
(also called Predicate Term) Middle term – term found in both premises and serves to mediate
between the minor and the major terms

2. Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism that contains a hypothetical statement as one of its premises
A compound statement which contains a proposed or tentative explanation Consists of at least
2 clauses connected by conjunctions, adverbs, etc.

Its subject is simply affirmed or denied by the predicate.

Expresses the relationship between the classes as well as our assent to it. The clauses are
simple statements which contain 1 subject and 1 predicate.

ii. Conditional Syllogism - Conditional statement Compound statement which asserts that 1
member (THEN clause) is true in 1 condition that, the other member (IF clause) is true. IF
Clause or its equivalent is the ANTECEDENT. THEN Clause or its equivalent is the
CONSEQUENT.

RULES FOR CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS: RULE 1. A conditional syllogism is invalid if minor


premise denies antecedent. Invalid form is called Fallacy of denying the antecedent. RULE 2.
The minor premise affirms consequent. Invalid form is called Fallacy of affirming the
consequent.

2 VALID FORMS OF CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS:

1. MODUS PONENS 2. MODUS TOLLENS Modus ponens when minor premise affirms the
antecedent, conclusion must affirm the consequent.

Modus tollens when minor premise denied the consequent, conclusion must deny the
antecedent.

b. Enthymemes - Kind of argument that is stated incompletely, part being “understood” or only “in
the mind”
sometimes the court use this, but there are missing premise, usually one premise and then
conclusion.
Sometimes in jurisdiction of US
Ex.
Imposition of philsat. Here missing the premise to connect the premise and the conclusion, i.e.
of the violation of the philsat to consider it as unconstitutional.
Any violation of the constitution is unlawful
This example is acceptable because it is violates a constitution.

c. Polysyllogisms - A series of syllogisms in which the conclusion of 1 syllogism supplies a


premise of the next syllogism. Used because more than one logical step is needed to reach the
desired conclusion.
This is usually the courts use in the decision or ruling.

• Legal Logic, Evangelista and Aquino (Chapter 3)

4 I. Inductive Reasoning in Law • People vs. Paguntalan, G.R. No. 116272a. Types of inductive reasoning
i. Inductive Generalization
ii. Analogical Arguments - An argument that relies on characteristics of a sample population to
make a claim about the population as a whole.

Depend upon an analogy or a similarity between two or more things

This claim is a general claim that makes a statement about all, most or some members of a
class, group, or set. Uses evidence about a limited number of people or things of a certain type
(the sample population), to make a general claim about a larger group of people of that type
(population as a whole).

Very useful in law particularly in deciding what rule to apply in a particular case and in setting
disputed factual questions.

• Rule 133, Section 4, Revised Rules on Evidence


• Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1995)
• Legal Logic, Evangelista and Aquino (Chapter 4)

You might also like