CHAPTER 3 - term found in both premises and serves

DEDUCTIVE REASONING to mediate between the minor and the

major terms
Syllogisms
A three-line argument Rules for the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms
consist of 2 premises and 1 conclusion 1. The syllogism must not contain two negative
found in most judicial opinions and briefs premises
- Violation of this rule is called the fallacy
TYPES OF SYLLOGISMS of exclusive premises
- when premises are both negative, the
1. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM middle term fails to serve its function of
mediating between the major and minor
Properties: terms.
Quality
may be affirmative or negative 2. There must be three pairs of univocal terms
AFFIRMATIVE - EQUIVOCAL: Has different meanings
Some crimes are punishable by imprisonment.
in its occurrences
The accused denied the charges against him.
- UNEQUIVOCAL: has the same
NEGATIVE meaning in different occurrences
No one is above the law. - Violation of this rule is called fallacy of
The accused is not guilty of the crime.
equivocation

Quantity
3. The middle term must be universal at least once
universal or particular - Reason: when the middle term is
UNIVERSAL when what is being affirmed or particular in both premises it might
denied of the subject term is just a part of its stand for a different portion of its
extension extension in each occurrence and be
PARTICULAR when what is being affirmed or equivalent to two terms, and fail to
denied of the subject is just a part of its fulfill its function of uniting or
extension separating the minor and major terms
- violation is called the fallacy of
Quantity of the Predicate
particular middle
not identical to nor dependent on the quantity
- EXCEPTION TO THE RULE:
of the subject term
TWO RULES IN DETERMINING: Premises is quantified by most
and conclusion is quantified by
1. Predicate of an affirmative statement is
some
generally particular
4. If the term in the conclusion is universal, the
2. Predicate of a negative statement is
same term in the premise must also be
always universal
universal.
Parts of a Categorical Syllogism - violation is called the fallacy of illicit
Minor Term (S) minor
- The subject of the conclusion - in a deductive reasoning, the
- also called the subject term conclusion should not go beyond what
the premises state.
Major Term (P) - The conclusion must not be wider in
- The predicate of the conclusion extension than the premises.

- Also called the predicate term

Middle Term (M)

2. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
- Contains a hypothetical statement as one of
its premises CHAPTER 4
INDUCTIVE REASONING
- claim that their conclusion is likely or probably true

Kinds: TYPES:
1. CONDITIONAL 1. Inductive Generalizations
2. DISJUNCTIVE
- an argument that relies on characteristics of a
3. CONJUNCTIVE
sample population to make a claim about the
CONDITIONAL population as a whole
- a syllogism which the major premise is a - uses evidence about a limited number of
conditional statement people or things of a certain type to make a
- a conditional statement is a compound statement general claim about a larger group of people of
which asserts that one member is true on condition things of that type
that the other member is true Evaluating
Is the sample large enough?
REFER TO PAGE 52
- when it is clear that we have not rushed
Enthymemes to judgement or formed a hasty
- an argument in which one premise is not explicitly generalization
expressed or explained
Is the sample representative?
Polysyllogisms - to prevent bias
- a tendency to pile one syllogism on top of another
- there must be diversity in our sample
- a series of syllogisms in which the conclusion of
one syllogism supplies a premise of the next
- RANDOM SAMPLE
syllogism - one in which all members of the
- used because more than one logical step is target have an equal opportunity to
needed to reach the desired conclusion be in the sample.
- to ensure that the diversity of the
target is reflected by the sample
- may be biased when surveys require
participants to initiate contact rather than
using a survey taker to actively solicit
responses
- a GOOD INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
should make a conclusion that is
appropriate to the evidence offered by its
premises

2. Analogical Arguments
- a comparison of things based on similarities
those things share
- depend upon analogy or similarity between two
or more things
- simply point out the similarities between each
other
- can apply doctrine of precedence

- 3 step process according to EDWARD LEVI:

1. Establish similarities between two cases
2. Announce the rule of law embedded in
the first case
 3. apply the rule of law to the second case

- makes one-on one comparisons that require no

generalizations or reliance on universal rules.

EVALUATING
1. relevance of similarities
2. relevance of dissimilarities
Kilosbayan v. Morato