Anda di halaman 1dari 23

LEGAL TECHNIQUE

AND LOGIC
WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING
당신이 잠든 사이에

Barcelona, Winflor Marie


Delavin, Sheryl
Dioquino, John Freko
Lagutan, Kenken
Moreno, Ronald Allan
Garcia, Havenlynne
Bautista, Neil Jope
Table of Contents

I. Legal Reasoning and Arguments

II. Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning

III. Deductive Reasoning, Syllogisms

IV. Inductive Reasoning, Analogical Arguments

V. Fallacies
I. Legal Reasoning and Arguments
Time Mark: 8:10-8:17
“Do you know what’s more awful than not knowing anything?”
“Thinking that you know everything.”

Episode: 6
Topic/ Concept: Arguments distinguished from unsupported opinions
Explanation: Statements of belief or opinion are statements about what a speaker or writer
happens to believe. Such statements can be true or false, rational or irrational, but they are parts
of arguments only if the speaker claims that they follow from, or support, other claims. Here,
Jae-chan, claims that what’s more awful than not knowing anything is thinking that one knows
everything. This cannot be considered an argument because actually there is no premise or
reason given why the latter is true nor was there a basis for the statement.

Time Mark: 12:39-12:46


“There are other cases that are more urgent. Why are you so hung up on that
specific case? It’ll look like you’re trying to get back at Lawyer Lee like he
said.”
Episode: 6
Topic/ Concept: Arguments distinguished from conditional statements
Explanation: A conditional statement contains an if-then relationship. It contains two
components: the if-clause or the antecedent and the then-clause or the consequent. It may be
derived from the above statement that if Jae-chan continues to delve into the mentioned specific
case, then it will appear as if he was trying to get back at Lawyer Lee, attributed to a past
incident. Although the antecedent may lead to the conclusion of the consequent, the same does
not necessarily follow as in the case of arguments wherein the premise must be the basis for the
conclusion.

Time Mark: 19:58


“You want to indict and arrest him without such rights? Not justice, it’s foolish
bravery. Those who can’t differentiate the two shouldn’t be prosecutors.”
Episode: 6
Topic/ Concept: Evaluating legal reasoning
Explanation: The criteria that may be used to distinguish correct from incorrect legal
reasoning are truth and logic. This can be explained by looking at the two main processes
involved in legal reasoning: presentation of facts which pertain to the question of truth, and
inference which pertains to the question of logic. The first process deals with the question are the
premises provided in the argument true or acceptable? It is necessary for the conclusion of a
legal argument to be grounded on factual basis, for if the premise that is meant to establish the
truth of the claim (conclusion) is questionable, the conclusion itself is questionable.
II. Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning
Time mark: 3:32-3:38
“That’s a speculation.”
“We trust evidence more than mere speculation. Unfortunately, none of the
evidence supports your claim.”
Episode: 2
Topic /Concept: Admissibility and Relevance
Explanation: In this scene, Nam Hong-joo said that the cause of the accident might have been
tampered by Lee Yoo-bum. But Prosecutor Jung Jae-chan said that there is not enough basis for
the said statement. Evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth but must be
credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience
of mankind.

Time mark: 3:54


“All the evidence points at you”
Episode: 2
Topic /Concept: Burden of proof
Explanation: Burden of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his/her
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Basic is the rule in evidence that the
burden of proof lies upon him/her who asserts it, not upon him/her who denies. In criminal cases,
there is presumption of innocence by defendant. But in this episode, Prosecutor Jung said claims
which points against Nam Hong-joo. So, Nam Hong-joo has now burden of countering said
claims to prove her innocence.

Time mark: 9:56


“...to be examined, so summon them for the same day”
Episode: 6
Topic /Concept: Examination
Explanation: In this scene, Prosecutor Jung re-investigated the case of Park Jun Mo. He wanted
to summon Park Jun Mo, Doctor from Kiyoung Hospital and the Victim, Ms. Do for cross-
examination. Cross-examination is conducted upon the termination of the direct examination.
The witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct
examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy
and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts
bearing upon the issue.
Time mark: 15:35
“I wrote ‘lack of evidence’ as the reason.”
Episode #: 10
Topic /Concept: Admissibility and Relevance
Explanation: In this scene, Assistant Prosecutor Park Dae-young answered the question of Son
Woo-joo pertaining to her request for the approval of the Driving under the influence (DUI) hit-
and-run case. The Assistant prosecutor added that even if he approved the request of Ms. Son,
the accused will only be acquitted if the case goes to court. In this case, the evidence must have
such a relation to the fact in issue. The prosecution must provide enough evidence to properly
charge the accused. Lack of evidence will only result in his acquittal.

Time mark: 7:04


“The driver’s seat was okay. However, the passenger’s seat was completely
destroyed because it hit the gate.”
Episode: 12
Topic /Concept: Testimony of Witness and Examination
Explanation: In this scene, the witness was describing what he saw when he first came into the
accident area. Testimony is generally confined to personal knowledge; and therefore excludes
hearsay. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge
which provided under the Rules of Court.
In addition, in this scene, the witness is undergoing examination: (1) Direct examination
conducted by Prosecutor Shin Hee-min; and (2) Cross-examination by Atty. Lee Yoo-beom.
Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the
facts relevant to the issue. While in cross-examination, the witness may be cross-examined by
the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination or connected therewith, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.

Time mark: 8:31


“Then please provide evidence to your claim.”
Episode: 12
Topic /Concept: Evidence
Explanation: In this scene, Atty. Lee Yoo-beom is cross-examining the witness. Atty. Lee
claimed that the victim did not die in a car accident. Then, the judge asked for the evidence of his
claim. Evidence is needed in order to back one’s claim as fact and not just opinion. The scene
continued and Atty. Lee provided information as his evidence to his claim that the victim died in
a heart attack and not in the accident.
Time mark: 1:33
“An assumption can’t be evidence.”
Episode: 16
Topic /Concept: Burden of proof
Explanation: In this scene, Lieutenant Han Woo-tak is under investigation by Prosecutor Jung
in a case where the accused is charged of homicide. However, Lieutenant Han replied Prosecutor
Jung’s statement that the accused is presumed guilty until otherwise proven. Burden of proof is
the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his/her claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law. Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies upon him/her
who asserts it, not upon him/her who denies. In criminal cases, there is presumption of innocence
by defendant. In his statement, Lieutenant Han said that the Prosecutor must prove that Hak
Young (accused) did the crime, so he can be charged.

Time mark: 24:15


“I remember. I think it was bus number six.”
Episode: 23
Topic /Concept: Examination
Explanation: In this scene, a cross-examination was conducted by the defense lawyer, Atty. Lee
to the child witness. In cross-examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse
party as to any matters stated in the direct examination or connected therewith, with sufficient
fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or
the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
Atty. Lee asked questions to the child after Prosecutor Jung had conducted his direct
examination. Atty. Lee proved to the judge that the child as witness cannot be reliable in the case
for not being able to distinguish which bus the kid had on his way home.
However, Prosecutor Jung conducted a re-direct examination to the child. Prosecutory
Jung validated that the child’s testimony in the case was reliable/credible.

Time mark: 5:11


“The cause of death is the exterior shock on the brain of the victim that led to
excessive bleeding on the arachnoid membrane.”
Episode: 24
Topic /Concept: Examination
Explanation: In this scene, a direct-examination was conducted by Prosecutor Son Woo-joo of
a witness (the one who conducted the autopsy of the victim). Direct examination is the
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
The prosecutor presented to the judge that the victim had died intentionally and not by accident.
Time mark: 5:45
“To summon Ms. Nam, Mr. Choi, and Mr. Han so that we can question them as
witnesses at the next trial.”
Episode: 30
Topic /Concept: Testimony of Witnesses
Explanation: In this scene, the three (3) names were summoned in order to confirm the validity
of their statements in the Court. Testimony is generally confined to personal knowledge; and
therefore excludes hearsay. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge which provided under the Rules of Court.
III. Deductive Reasoning, Syllogisms
Time Mark: 05:58-06:01
“If I let my guard down, a neighbor will turn into friend, then a friend will
become a boyfriend.”
Episode: 1
Topic/ Concept: Hypothetical Statement
Explanation: A hypothetical statement is a compound statement which contains a proposed
or tentative explanation. Jae Chan’s line indicates a hypothetical statement of syllogism where
she has proposed that if she lets her guard down, a relationship can arise from a friend to lovers.

Time Mark: 19:52-19:55; 22:55


“You followed us and crashed the car. It was obviously intentional.”
“The truth is you almost killed us.”
Episode: 2
Topic/ Concept: Enthymeme
Explanation: The kind of argument that is stated incompletely, part being understood or only in
the mind, is called an enthymeme. In this scene, Lee Yoo Beom deduced, although not
completely stated, one who has the intent to crash a car more likely has the intention to kill the
person.

Time Mark: 04:25-04:32


“When you stop a running water, it diverts its course. You stopped things from
happening just like stopping the running water. Time will flow differently.”
Episode: 3
Topic/ Concept: Hypothetical Syllogism – Conditional Syllogism
Explanation: A conditional statement is a compound statement which assert that one member
(the then clause) is true on condition that the other member (the if clause) is true. Conditional
statements can be expressed not only in the if-then clauses but also in a wide variety of different
sentences. If we write the statements of Jae Chan’s in the if-then forms, we can see that their
meaning remains the same. If you stop the running water, then it will stop things from happening
and time will flow differently.

Time Mark: 19:25-19:33


“Accused Park Jun Mo, he’s charged for assault. The injured party does not wish
the accused to be punished. Therefore, the case is unprosecutable.”
Episode: 4
Topic/ Concept: Rules for Validity of Categorical Syllogisms – the syllogism must not contain
two negative premises
Explanation: This scene explicitly provides for the 3 kinds of statements in a categorical
syllogism which are minor premise, major premise and conclusion. This syllogism, is thus valid
since Jae Chan only used one negative premise which is “the injured party does not wish the
accused to be punished”. The violation of this rule is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.

Time Mark: 26:11-26:13


“All prosecutors are stupid. A victim’s statement is all they need to let the
accused go.”
Episode: 6
Topic/ Concept: Properties of Categorical Syllogisms: Quantity – universal statements
Explanation: This line shows a universal statement which uses “all. The statement is universal
when what is being affirmed of the subject term is its whole extension. In this statement, So
Yoon’s universal statement is that all prosecutors are stupid.

Time Mark: 02:54 -03:03


“If this case is put on a trial, Mr. Park will stop supporting you financially right
away. So Yoon’s career as a pianist and major competitions will all be gone. Your
daughter will lose her talent, future, and everything else.”
Episode: 7
Topic/ Concept: Conditional Syllogisms
Explanation: In this scene, Lee Yoo Beom used a conditional syllogism while discussing what
will happen if So Yoon’s mother will file a case against her husband; in conditional syllogism,
what is important is the sequence between the antecedent and the consequent, that is the truth of
the consequent follows upon the fulfillment of the condition stated in the antecedent.

Time Mark: 17:52-18:00


“After that, it was Jae Chan. Then it happened to me too. If this was a contagious
disease, you’d be the first infectee. But it’s obviously not spread through air or
physical contact. Had it been the case, a lot more people would’ve been infected.”
Episode: 9
Topic/ Concept: Conditional Syllogisms
Explanation: Woo Tak deducing that if their dreams are contagious disease, there are also other
people that are dreaming the same as theirs.
Time Mark: 22:15-22:19
“Such accidents are considered crimes of criminal negligence. Since it was a
mistake, aiding or abetting it, was simply impossible. Therefore, we cannot
accuse him of such offense.”
Episode: 9
Topic/ Concept: Deductive Reasoning – valid argument
Explanation: We are reasoning deductively when our premises intend to guarantee the truth of
our conclusion. Notice that in this scenario, the conclusion of Prosecutor Shin flows from its
premises with logical necessity.

Time Mark: 05:28-05:35


“The accused has often paid penalties for not wearing seatbelts. But on the day of
the accident, only Kang has worn the seatbelt. His brother did not wear the
seatbelt. Is this a coincidence?”
Episode: 12
Topic/ Concept: Enthymeme
Explanation: Prosecutor Shin might not use a formal structure of two premises and a
conclusion. But it can be analyzed deeper that that the argument intended to show that the fact
that the accused has often paid penalties but on the day of the accident he has worn the seat belt
leads to a deduction that he is more likely to kill his brother.

Time Mark: 02:13-02:18


“You have to mention that specific tool on the arraignment. If you don’t, you
cannot specify a charge. Not specifying can lead this to be dismissed in the trial.”
Episode: 13
Topic/ Concept: Hypothetical Syllogism
Explanation: Woo Tak gave a hypothetical statement that if Jae Chan cannot specify charge
then the trial can be dismissed.

Time Mark: 21:51-21:61


“If Jae Chan lets Do Hak Young go, people will assume that it’s because they’re
acquainted. That will put Mr. Jung in jeopardy.”
Episode: 18
Topic/ Concept: Enthymeme
Explanation: Although the argument’s structure of Lee Yoo Beom may be obscured because
not all parts of syllogism are expressed; but lying below the surface of him is an argument that if
Jae Chan lets the accused go, people will criticize him. Jae Chan will choose not to prosecute the
accused. Therefore, he will be criticized.
Time Mark: 10:30-11:25
“The accused did not stop his heart from beating. It’s the doctor who stopped his
heart when he worked on the main artery. So the death recognized by the criminal
law has not caused by the accused but the doctor who conducted the surgery. So
by criminal law, the victim did not die because of the accused. He died because of
organ transplant. Therefore, we can’t charge the accused for victim’s death.”
Episode: 24
Topic/ Concept: Valid arguments in deductive reasoning
Explanation: The validity of arguments does not depend on the truth of the premises or
conclusion. It should be emphasized, however, that no valid argument can have all true premises
and a false conclusion. In this scene, Lee Yoo Beom’s premises may not all be true. Otherwise, it
cannot be considered that his argument is invalid.

Time Mark: 25:39-25:43


“They’ll ask you what the umbrellas looked alike. If you can’t answer that
question, they’ll find out about your color blindness then you’ll have to leave the
police.
Episode: 30
Topic/ Concept: Conditional Syllogism
Explanation: Hong Joo deducing what will happen to Jae Chan if he continued to testify by
using conditional syllogism that if Woo Tak could not answer the question, he would have to
leave as a police officer.
IV. Inductive Reasoning, Analogical Arguments
Time Mark: 19:14
“At times, fighting for justice and helping the weak can clash. As in the Park
Jun Mo case. His wife writing that statement doesn’t mean she forgave him.
We’re only pretending not to know because we want his wife to make a choice
between staying inside the thorny walls and braving the thorn bush by staying
out of those walls. People like us who are sitting in a field of pretty flowers
don’t have any right to tell her what to do.”
Episode: 6
Topic/ Concept: Inductive argument: Analogical argument
Explanation: Here, it can be noticed that the argument is not certain or demonstratively
valid. The conclusion does not follow with logical necessity from the premises. For instance, it is
logically possible that the wife did not really write the statement due to forgiveness, but it is not
conclusive. Just like any inductive argument, there is no mathematical certainty in analogical
arguments. However, the claims of these arguments may still be reasonably accepted. Moreover,
the comparison of people who are sitting in a field of pretty flowers and those who have to make
a choice between staying inside thorny walls and braving the thorn bush, is a type of inductive
argument which is analogical argument. Ordinarily, it is a comparison of things based on
similarities two things share but here it was the difference that was highlighted. It must be noted,
however, that aside from the similarities, differences likewise must be considered.

Time Mark: 2:34


“I’m a lawyer who used to be a prosecutor. I dealt with many similar cases
when I was a prosecutor. At first, I wanted to get better performance reviews. I
don’t care whether Mr. Park goes to jail or not, but you two are the ones I care
about. If this case is put on a trial, Mr. Park will stop supporting you
financially right away. So Yoon’s career as a pianist and major competitions
will all be gone. Your daughter will lose her talent, future, and everything else.
You trial will be exposed to media for certain.”

03:46
“Whenever people watch So Yoon’s performance, they will think of her
convicted dad. Mr. Park is not the one who will lose everything after the trial,
it’s you two.”

Time Mark: 15:29


“Why didn’t you approve my request for the DUI hit-and-run case?”
“Indicting the passenger for aiding and abetting DUI is too harsh. Don’t you
know? He’ll be acquitted anyway if the case goes to court.”
“That’s what happened in the trial last month.”
Episode: 7 and 9
Topic/ Concept: Inductive Reasoning
Explanation: Here, it can be noticed that the argument is not certain or demonstratively valid.
The conclusion does not follow with logical necessity from the premises. For instance, it is
logically possible that the wife did not really write the statement due to forgiveness or a previous
ruling to a similar case might apply to a case at hand with similar facts, but it is not conclusive.
Just like any inductive argument, there is no mathematical certainty in analogical arguments.
However, the claims of these arguments may still be reasonably accepted.
V. Fallacies
Time Mark: 10:48
Episode: 1 – “The Accident”
Topic/ Concept: Accident
Explanation: Hong Joo asserted that future is unchangeable and those who know what
going to happen cannot change the happenings in the near future. This cannot
be true at all times because what will happen in the future depends on whatever
decision we do at the present and it’s for us to decide to choose our destiny.

Time Mark: 8:36


Episode: 2 – “The Dream”
Topic/ Concept: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from Ignorance)
Explanation: Hong Joo claims that Jae Chan felt something special towards her just because
for the things he had done since they first met. She clearly misunderstood what
Jae Chan’s intention of doing such things just because of her belief.

Time Mark: 48:56


Episode: 2 – “The Dream”
Topic/ Concept: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from Ignorance)
Explanation: Jae Chan’s statement/decision over the case of injury is based on the mere
documents and medical result provided to him without investigating the matter
thoroughly.

Time Mark: 26:49


Episode: 3 – “Secretly, Greatly”
Topic/ Concept: Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
Explanation: Su-yoon asserts that all prosecutors are not fair with the investigation that they
don’t investigate over the cases thoroughly. It is because a particular
prosecutor and lawyer involve in her mother’s case in the past fail to bring
justice for her mom.

Time Mark: 33:47


Episode: 6 – “False Insurance Case”
Topic/ Concept: False Dilemma
Explanation: Lawyer Yu-beom denies the prosecution evidence, he instead tries to mislead
the juries using the evidence provided by the prosecution.

Time Mark: 15:44


Episode: 12 – “What Caused His Death”
Topic/ Concept: Accident
Explanation: Lawyer Yu-beom disagreed one of the evidence by the prosecution which is
the 4 year old witness. He allege that it cannot be used as an evidence for the
witness is a minor and his statement might be illogical.

Time Mark: 11:18


“No media outlet will report the truth about the Do Hak Young Case. xxx the
media will never take our side. The public’s view won’t change either. The
protesters will continue to protest and curse at you. And they’ll criticize the work
you do for every case you take on from now on”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Shin is arguing here what would be the possible response of the people
in case Prosecutor Jung will not indict Do Hak Young. This scenario falls within the fallacy of
division because she concludes that the people usual response will likewise be the same in this
case.

Time Mark: 11:32


“There’s a thing called the Law of Motion in the news industry.if we suddenly
make a u-turn after going straight for a while, what will people think of us? If we
keep changing direction, no one will want our news because it’ll make them
dizz.”
Episode: 18
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Vicious abstraction
Explanation: The Captain here is arguing based on the so called “Law of Motion” which is
vague in its term.

Time Mark: 15:31-15:42


“He’s showing the symptom of unclear mindsets. xxx Whatever he’s saying
doesn’t mean anything.”
Episode: 19
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Son is stating here that because Prosecutor Jung is showing symptoms
of unclear mindset, he is likewise saying thing that has no meaning. She is inferring that all
persons showing signs of unclear mindset say things with no meaning.

Time Mark: 19:21 – 19:53


“I have met many people around Yoo Su Kyung for this case. Everyone around
her praised, respected, and loved her. Xxx This was the most crucial evidence that
she was not killed”
Episode: 20
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung was telling the parents of Yoo Su Kyung that the latter is not
killed because she is a nice person. This is a fallacy of division because not all nice persons have
the absolute impossibility of being killed. He inferred that what is true generally with nice
persons are also true in the case of Yoo Su Kyung.

Time mark: 21:18


“We need to have firm evidence.”
Episode: 22
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Vicious Abstraction
Explanation: Prosecutor Lee in this scenario is arguing that they must have a firm evidence
before deciding whether to order the autopsy or not. He is argument is vague since the term “firm
evidence” has no exact meaning and cannot be used as basis in an argument.

Time mark: 23:42


“If I’m that teaching assistants parent, I want to know why my son died. It’ll be
more important than saving the life of someone else’s child”
Episode: 22
Topic/concept:Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Son stated in this scenario that a parent in general would feel the same
as she would and she concluded that this is also the same case with the teaching assistant’s
parent. She is inferring that what is true about a parents feeling towards this situation is also true
in the particular case.

Time mark: 02:14


“Rat! There’s a rat! I mean I have a cramp in my leg”
Episode: 23
Topic/concept:Fallacy of Equivocation
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung here uses the term “rat” that would either mean an animal or in
this case, a cramp in his leg. This is a fallacy of equivocation because he used a word that has
more than one meaning.

Time mark: 16:18


“That’s my point. He’ll be scared to talk in front of all those men.”
Episode: 23
Topic/concept:Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung concludes here that the five year old witness cannot stand a trial
because children with such age are usually afraid to talk in front of many people.

Time mark: 25:52


“Criminals always come up with plausible stories and excuses. You pity them and
feel that they might have been wronged, but you’ll get in serious trouble if you
fall for that.
Episode: 25
Topic/concept:Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Mr. Choi stated in this scenario that criminal often make stories and excuses. He
concluded that Myung Si Yuk did the same and if Prosecutor Jae Chan will fall for it, he’ll be in
a serious trouble. He inferred that what holds true to all criminals also holds true in case of
Myung Si Yuk.

Time mark: 4:48-06:05


“Me being here today could be your future too. xxx It’s hard to get 100 percent
right even on your dictation tests. xxx You must have a few cases that went
wrong. xxx You’re all standing there is just because you are lucky that your
misjudgements weren’t found. The reason I am here is my judgement being found
on a bad luck.”
Episode: 32
Topic/concept:Fallacy of Composition
Explanation: Lee Yu Beom here is arguing that what happened to him as a lawyer who is a
former prosecutor would happen to all the prosecutors. He infers that what is true to him would
also be true to all the prosecutors.

Time Mark 02:44


“But I've changed. I don't care whether Mr. park goes to jail or not. But you two
are the ones I care about.”
Episode 7
Topic/concept: (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Improper Accent)
explanation: placing improper emphasis on a particular aspect of a claim

Time mark 04:03


“Prosecutor Jung will prosecute him anyway, ignoring that consent form. You
have to do more. You have to beg him if you need to. It's for your daughter.
Topic/concept: (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Improper Accent)
Episode 7
explanation: placing improper emphasis on a particular aspect of a claim

Time mark: 06:08


“Only snakes do. Snakes become bigger and creepier as they slip out of their old
skins.”
Topic/Concept: (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Vicious Abstraction)
Episode 7
explanation: untranslated notion of the word "snakes"
Time mark: 09:08
“I do know. I completely know how you feel.
Topic/Concept: (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Composition)
explanation: it wrongly infers that what holds true holds true in general

Time mark: 02:01


“My dear, Mr Choi. We're not late, are we?”
Topic/Concept:(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Amphiboly
Episode 8
Explanation: Unclear pronoun reference

Time mark: 04:27


“Ms. Do Geum Sook, wanted you to be punished, so things got
complicated
Topic/Concept(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Division)
explanation: unwarranted assumption that a characteristic of the whole is therefore a
characteristic of each parts.

Time mark: 08:13


. “After listening to Lawyer Lee, all the pieces fell into place.
Topic/Concept (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Amphiboly)
Episode 8
explanation: careless use of the word "all"

Time mark 10:04


“She sound like a total femme fatale”
Topic/concept(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Equivocation)
Episode 9
Explanation: carelessly allowing a key word to shift in meaning in the middle of the argument,
while giving the impression that all instances of the word have the same meaning.

Time mark 13:05


“Why can't I change my future when he was able to do it?”
Topic/concept (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Amphiboly)
Episode 9
explanation: a claim whose meaning can be interpreted in two or more ways due to its
grammatical construction.

Time mark 18:15


“No, you must've saved the country or something in your past life.
Topic/concept(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Amphiboly)
Episode 9
explanation: a claim whose meaning can be interpreted in two or more ways due to its
grammatical construction. It can be interpreted that "She must have saved the country or
something else in the past." It can also mean that she must have saved the country or something
else happened in the past.

Time mark 21:11


“I think people people who demand complimentary soda or free appetizers
at restaurant look so cheap.”
Topic/Concept(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Amphiboly)
Episode 9
explanation: a claim whose meaning can be interpreted in two or more ways due to its
grammatical construction.

Time mark 22:04


“Both the person who caused the accident and the one who let the accident
happen instead of stopping it are sinners. Our Lord who is fair, please use your sword to also
punish the one who chose not to prevent the accident.
Topic/Concept(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Composition)
Episode 9
explanation: it wrongly infers that what holds true of the individuals automatically holds true of
the group of individuals. It does not follow that both should be punished.

Time mark 22:14


“Such accidents are considered crimes of criminal negligence. Since it was a
mistake, aiding or abetting it was simply impossible. Therefore, we cannot accuse him of
such offense.
Episode 9
Topic/Concept(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Division)
explanation: There is unwarranted assumption that a characteristic of the whole is therefore a
characteristic of each parts.

Time mark 22:21


“Driving under the influence of alcohol can lead to accidents, so the accident could
have been predicted and prevented.”
Topic/Concept (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Division)
Episode 9
Explanation: There is unwarranted assumption that a characteristic of the whole is therefore a
characteristic of each parts.
Time mark 22:27
“Father, the person who turned blind eye to it all certainly deserves a punishment,
and that's why the law exists. According to that logic, everyone who hasn't made any
donations to starving children all over the world also deserves punishment.”
Topic/concept(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Composition)
Episode 9

explanation: it wrongly infers that what holds true of the individuals automatically holds true of
the group of individuals.

Time mark 22:44


“In this country, respecting elders is considered a virtue. We must treat our
superiors with respect.”
Topic/Concept(Fallacies of Ambiguity/Improper Accent)
Episode 9
explanation: placing improper emphasis on a particular aspect of a claim

Time mark 24:11


“It means that the probability of all four of you being Christian is 0.2 to the
power of 4, which equals 0.0016.”
Episode 9
Topic/concept (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Amphiboly)
explanation: careless use of the word all

Time mark 24:21


“ It's less than the probability of seeing a double rainbow. In other words it's
impossible.”
Episode 9
Topic/Concept (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Division)
explanation: There is unwarranted assumption that a characteristic of the whole is therefore a
characteristic of each parts.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 18
Time mark and lines: 11:032
“There’s a thing called the Law of Motion in the news industry.if we suddenly make a u-turn after going
straight for a while, what will people think of us? If we keep changing direction, no one will want our
news because it’ll make them dizz.”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Vicious abstraction
Explanation: The Captain here is arguing based on the so called “Law of Motion” which is vague in its
term.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 18
Time mark and lines: 11:18
“No media outlet will report the truth about the Do Hak Young Case. xxx the media will never take our
side. The public’s view won’t change either. The protesters will continue to protest and curse at you.
And they’ll criticize the work you do for every case you take on from now on”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Shin is arguing here what would be the possible response of the people in case
Prosecutor Jung will not indict Do Hak Young. This scenario falls within the fallacy of division because
she concludes that the people usual response will likewise be the same in this case.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 19
Time mark and lines: 15:31-15:42
“He’s showing the symptom of unclear mindsets. xxx Whatever he’s saying doesn’t mean anything.”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Son is stating here that because Prosecutor Jung is showing symptoms of
unclear mindset, he is likewise saying thing that has no meaning. She is inferring that all persons
showing signs of unclear mindset say things with no meaning.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 20
Time mark and lines:
19:21 – 19:53 “I have met many people around Yoo Su Kyung for this case. Everyone around her
praised, respected, and loved her. Xxx This was the most crucial evidence that she was not killed”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung was telling the parents of Yoo Su Kyung that the latter is not killed because
she is a nice person. This is a fallacy of division because not all nice persons have the absolute
impossibility of being killed. He inferred that what is true generally with nice persons are also true in the
case of Yoo Su Kyung.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 22
Time mark and lines: 21:18
“We need to have firm evidence.”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Vicious Abstraction
Explanation: Prosecutor Lee in this scenario is arguing that they must have a firm evidence before
deciding whether to order the autopsy or not. He is argument is vague since the term “firm evidence”
has no exact meaning and cannot be used as basis in an argument.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 22
Time mark and lines: 23:42
“If I’m that teaching assistants parent, I want to know why my son died. It’ll be more important than
saving the life of someone else’s child”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Son stated in this scenario that a parent in general would feel the same as she
would and she concluded that this is also the same case with the teaching assistant’s parent. She is
inferring that what is true about a parents feeling towards this situation is also true in the particular
case.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 23
Time mark and lines: 02:14
“Rat! There’s a rat! I mean I have a cramp in my leg”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Equivocation
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung here uses the term “rat” that would either mean an animal or in this case,
a cramp in his leg. This is a fallacy of equivocation because he used a word that has more than one
meaning.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 23
Time mark and lines: 16:18
“That’s my point. He’’ be scared to talk in front of all those men’”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung concludes here that the five year old witness cannot stand a trial because
children with such age are usually afraid to talk in front of many people.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 25
Time mark and lines: 25:52
“Criminals always come up with plausible stories and excuses. You pity them and feel that they might
have been wronged, but you’ll get in serious trouble if you fall for that.
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Mr. Choi stated in this scenario that criminal often make stories and excuses. He concluded
that Myung Si Yuk did the same and if Prosecutor Jae Chan will fall for it, he’ll be in a serious trouble. He
inferred that what holds true to all criminals also holds true in case of Myung Si Yuk.

Chapter: 5
Episode No: 32
Time mark and lines: 4:48-06:05
“Me being here today could be your future too. xxx It’s hard to get 100 percent right even on your
dictation tests. xxx You must have a few cases that went wrong. xxx You’re all standing there is just
because you are lucky that your misjudgements weren’t found. The reason I am here is my judgement
being found on a bad luck.”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Composition
Explanation: Lee Yu Beom here is arguing that what happened to him as a lawyer who is a former
prosecutor would happen to all the prosecutors. He infers that what is true to him would also be true to
all the prosecutors.