I.

INTRODUCTION

A. History of Logic

The founder of Logic is Aristotle of Stagira in Thrace (384322B.C.), son of the physician NIchomachus and became
Platos student at 18 years of age and studied with him for
20 years. Shortly afterward in 343 B.C., became a tutor for
3 years to the 13- year old Alexander, who was to rule the
world as Alexander the Great. In 335 B. C., he founded his
own school, the Peripathetic School of philosophers.

Aristotles work on logic is found in his Organon (meaning

the method or organ of investigation) which consisted of a
number of his writings, including the following:
On Interpretation -dealt with the structure of
logical proposition;
Prior Analytics-the doctrine of syllogism;
Posterior Analytics-the logic of science and the
applications of the syllogism;
Topics-the logic of argument based on probable
truths;
Sophistical Test-dealt with logical fallacies.

Logical reasoning makes us certain that our conclusions are

true and this provides us with accepted scientific proofs of
universally valid propositions or statements.

B. Civil Law vs. Common Law Tradition

a. COMMON LAW:

That which derives its force and authority from the

universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The
system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which
was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent
instead of statutory laws.

Traditional law of an area or region; also known as case

law. The law created by judges when deciding individual
disputes or cases. The body of law which includes both the
unwritten law of England and the statutes passed before the
settlement of the United States.

In the common law, civil law is the area of laws and justice
that affect the legal status of individuals. Civil law, in
this sense, is usually referred to in comparison to criminal
law, which is that body of law involving the state against
1

individuals (including incorporated organizations) where the

state relies on the power given it by statutory law.
b. CIVIL LAW:

Civil
law
may
also
be
compared
to
military
law,
administrative law and constitutional law (the laws
governing the political and law making process), and
international law. Where there are legal options for causes
of action by individuals within any of these areas of law,
it is thereby civil law.

Civil law courts provide a forum for deciding disputes

involving torts (such as accidents, negligence, and libel),
contract disputes, the probate of wills, trusts, property
disputes, administrative law, commercial law, and any other
private
matters
that
involve
private
parties
and
organizations including government departments. An action by
an individual (or legal equivalent) against the attorney
general is a civil matter, but when the state, being
represented by the prosecutor for the attorney general, or
some other agent for the state, takes action against an
individual (or legal equivalent including a government
department), this is public law, not civil law.

The objectives of civil law are different from other types

of law. In civil law:
a. there is the attempt to right a wrong,
b. honor an agreement, or
c. settle a dispute.
d. If there is a victim, they get compensation, and the
person who is the cause of the wrong pays, this being a
civilized form of, or legal alternative to, revenge.
e. If it is an equity matter, there is often a pie for
division and it gets allocated by a process of civil
law, possibly invoking the doctrines of equity.
f. In public law, the objective is usually deterrence,
and retribution.

An action in criminal law does not necessarily preclude an

action in civil law in common law countries, and may provide
a mechanism for compensation to the victims of crime. Such a
situation occurred when O.J. Simpson was ordered to pay
damages for wrongful death after being acquitted of the
criminal charge of murder.

Civil law in common law countries usually refers to both

common law and the law of equity, which while now merged in
administration,
have
different
traditions,
and
have
historically operated to different doctrines, although this
2

dualism is increasingly being set aside so there is one

coherent body of law rationalized around common principles
of law.
C. Role of Logic in Law

Regardless of the professions we are in, we always use

logic. We use it when we make decisions or when we try to
influence the decisions of others or when we are engaged in
argumentation and debate.

A lawyer presents his arguments using the principle of logic

to prove the tenability of his position, otherwise, he will
send his client to jail. Everybody uses logic since everyone
possesses reason.

II. REASONING
A. BASIC CONCEPTS
1. What is Logic

Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict

principles of validity: experience is a better guide to this
than deductive logic".

A particular system or codification of the principles of

proof and inference: "Aristotelian logic".

2. Propositions and Sentences

a. Proposition

Proposition refers to either the "content" or "meaning" of a

meaningful
declarative
sentence.
The
meaning
of
a
proposition includes having the quality or property of being
either true or false

Propositional logic largely involves studying logical

connectives such as the words: and, or, and the rules
determining the truth-values of the propositions they are
used to join, as well as what these rules mean for the
validity of arguments, and such logical relationships
between statements as being consistent or inconsistent with
one another, as well as logical properties of propositions
b. Sentence
3

Sentence logic deals with sentences of a natural language

that are either true or false

Sentence logic ignores the internal structure of simple

sentences
Sentence logic is concerned with sentences which are
compounded in a certain way.

.A primary goal of sentence logic is to enable the

evaluation of a certain class of arguments in natural
language

. In an argument, a sentence that is the arguments con

3. Arguments, Premises and Conclusions

Argument is a connected series of statements intended to

establish a definite proposition. ...an argument is an
intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of anything the other person says.

An argument is a deliberate attempt to move beyond just

making an assertion. When offering an argument, you are
offering a series of related statements which represent an
attempt to support that assertion to give others good
reasons to believe that what you are asserting is true
rather than false.

Here are examples of assertions:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Shakespeare wrote the play Hamlet.

The Civil War was caused by disagreements over slavery.
God exists.
Prostitution is immoral.

Sometimes
you
hear
such
statements
referred
to
as
propositions. Technically speaking, a proposition is the
informational content of any statement or assertion.

To qualify as a proposition, a statement must be capable of

being either true or false.
3 major
1.
2.
3.

components of Argument:
Premise
Inference
Conclusion

a. Premises are statements of (assumed) fact which are supposed

to set forth the reasons and/or evidence for believing a
claim. The claim, in turn, is the conclusion: what you
finish with at the end of an argument. When an argument is
simple, you may just have a couple of premises and a
conclusion:
1. Doctors earn a lot of money. (premise)
2. I want to earn a lot of money. (premise)
3. I should become a doctor. (conclusion)
b. Inferences are the reasoning parts of an argument. Conclusions
are a type of inference, but always the final inference. Usually
an argument will be complicated enough to require inferences
linking the premises with the final conclusion:
1. Doctors earn a lot of money. (premise) [FACTUAL]
2. With a lot of money, a person can travel a lot. (premise)
[FACTUAL]
3. Doctors can travel a lot. (inference, from 1 and 2)
4. I want to travel a lot. (premise)
5. I should become a doctor. (from 3 and 4)
2 Types of Claims:
1. Factual Claim
2. Inferential Claim
- it expresses the idea that some matter of fact is related
to the sought-after conclusion. This is the attempt to link
the factual claim to the conclusion in such a way as to
support the conclusion. The third statement above is an
inferential claim because it infers from the previous two
statements that doctors can travel a lot.

Without an inferential claim, there would be no

connection between the premises and the conclusion.

It is rare to have an argument where inferential claims play

no role. Sometimes you will come across an argument where
inferential claims are needed, but missing you wont be able
to see the connection from factual claims to conclusion and
will have to ask for them.

clear

5. Recognizing Arguments

We use the term "argument" to mean a set of propositions in

which some propositions--the premisesare asserted as
support or evidence for another--the conclusion.

The author doesn't just tell us something that he takes to

be true; he also presents reasons intended to convince us
that it is true.

This intention is usually signaled by certain indicator

words. The following is a list of the more common indicator
words: (Premise Indicators, Conclusion Indicators)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Since
Therefore
Because
Thus
As
So
For
Consequent
ly

o Given that
o As
a
result
o Assuming
that
o It follows
that
o In as much
as
o Hence

o The reason
is that
o Which
means that
o In view of
the
fact
that
o Which
implies
that

6. Deduction and Induction

a. Deduction: A deductive argument claims that its premises
make its conclusion certain.

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

Example: All mammals have lungs.

All whales are mammals.
Therefore all whales have lungs.

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:
1. 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

b. Inductive: Inductive arguments do not try to establish their

conclusions with certainty. Instead, an inductive argument
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.
Example: Most corporation lawyers are conservatives.
Betty Morse is a corporation lawyer.
Therefore Betty Morse is a conservative.

7. Validity and Truth

a. Validity:

Deductive arguments may be either valid or

invalid. If an argument is valid, and its premises are true,

the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot have

true premises and a false conclusion.