legtech reviewer.pdf

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC Atty. Jesus Vincent B. Capellan

| This reviewer was based on Atty. Capellan’s notes, following his 2015-2016 course syllabus. “>” indicates my own notes. The notes and examples were taken from my homeworks/Sir’s homeworks/S ir’s lectures lectures.. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. ☺|

3. Practice Court > training on the preparation preparation and drafting of complaints, petitions, petitions, answers, pleadings and the art of effective oral advocacy 4. Legal and Judicial Forms > training in the drafting of various legal documents, deeds, pleadings, briefs > Legal Technique integrates the skills taught in the allied subjects

COURSE DESCRIPTION: Course on the methods of reasoning, syllogisms, arguments and expositions, deductions, the truth table demonstrating invalidity and inconsistency of arguments. It also includes the logical organization of legal language and logical testing of  judicial reasoning. reasoning.

B. BASIC SKILL 1. Legal Knowledge 2. Legal Proficiency 3. Written and Verbal Communication

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC It is the critical presentation presentation of investigative skills and analytical study on the application of laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and principles for an effective advocacy.  Animus Legend Legendi  i   - soul of lawyering Critical and analytical - Subsumed in the concept of (?) - Effective way of advocacy: articulate, good command of English language > Investigative Skills –  Skills –  concise  concise and logical presentation presentation of relevant facts, which are material to the issue; not all facts must be considered, only those that are competent and in consideration of the exclusionary rules (Art. 3, Sec. 2&12 of Consti.) > Critical presentation of Investigative Skills  –  treating  treating facts, getting rid of inessentials so that they are cohesive; application of style in interviewing clients, witnesses, validating facts; arranging/utilizing a method; keen sense of discernment > Advocacy –  Advocacy –  act   act of pleading/arguing a case or position

BASIC SKILL

CHARACTERISTICS OF ADVOCATE: 1. Personality - deep concentration, airtight memory, confidence, ability to rework, reshape (edit work), hone, polish, articulateness 2. Philosophy - firm resolve or purpose 3. Endurance - discipline 4. Drive –  Drive –  determination,   determination, goal to succeed 5. Speed –  Speed  – ability ability to act swiftly based on one’s counsel, (?) and ability to handle the language 6. Wit  –   one with greatest combination of skills, understanding of principles that govern 7. Ethical –  Ethical –  measured   measured by the length and breadth of his integrity

COURSE SYLLABUS I. INTRODUCTION A. ALLIED SUBJECT and THEIR DISTINCTIONS 1. Legal Research and Counseling > LegRes –  LegRes –  methods  methods in the preparation of legal opinions, memoranda; process of identifying and retrieving information necessary to support legal decision-making; its goal is to find authority that will aid in finding a solution to a legal problem > Leg Coun –  Coun –  rendition  rendition of advice and guidance concerning a legal matter; process of helping a client make a decision 2. Statutory Construction > use and force of statutes ad principles and methods of their construction and interpretation

A. LEGAL KNOWLEDGE In General: 1. Level of familiarity, understanding, perception or being conversant with laws and legal principles and their application in common. 2. Associate with recall and understanding of theoretical aspects of a subject matter. 3. As distinguished from practical evaluation and analysis in Legal Proficiency. 4. Ability to recollect  –   specific provision of law and appropriate interpretative  jurisprudence  jurisprudence How various provisions interrelate with one another Rationale behind these provisions Various interpretative jurisprudence considered as doctrine or landmark cases decided en banc Role of specific legal provisions within the context of a given social environment Evolution of legal provisions and the effect of changes in these legal provisions (statcon –  (statcon –  spirit  spirit of law) in addressing present day concerns Ethical boundaries

B. LEGAL PROFICIENCY 1. Use of the knowledge of the law for the solution of legal problems 2. Deals with: - Facts - Issues they present - Arguments that support one’s side of the issue and - Conclusion in the light of the law and jurisprudence 3. Specifically, it is the skill in sifting or probing through a complex maze of conflicting facts and argument - To arrive at facts that are relevant to the solution of a legal problem 4. Ability to maintain professional skepticism in the appreciation of facts 5. Ability to determine what specific provisions of law are - Applicable to a specific set of facts - In the light of jurisprudence 6. Ability to determine how current jurisprudence doctrines doctrines may possibly change in the light of - Changes in factual and legal environment - Changes in the court’s composition, and the

- Application of various schools of jurisprudence 7. Ability to determine the current applicability of existing laws and jurisprudence considering the changing s ocial environment 8. Ability to craft proposal for new law, rule and regulation, new (?) or amendments 9. Ability to apply proficiency (?) C. WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMUNICATION

* Problems in modern legal writing: flabby, prolix, obscure, (?) * Legal writer must consider these subjects, among others: 1. Vocabulary –   choice of appropriate words 2. Organization – effective arrangement of thoughts 3. Topic flow –   appropriate articulation of concepts 4. Transitions –   connect between ideas 5. Structure –   proper elements of a document 6. Audience –   nature of expected readership 7. Tone –   manner of spirit of addressing readers 8. Style –   types of sentences and cadence of prose 9. Clarity –  fit between idea and expressions 10. Accuracy –   fit between expression and reality 11. Timing - when to write and when, and how often, to edit BLACK LETTER RULE - use in reference to a law, technical term or case. CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD ANSWER: 1. Begin with a thesis or conclusion, if appropriate (first sentence should show the direct answer) 2. Avoid beating around the bush 3. Correct statement of “black letter rule” (of the law, principle, case, law, technical terms, etc.) 4. Avoid legal lecturing 5. Concentrate on basic issues 6.  No mistakes in using facts 7. Interweaving of key facts and elements in the black letter rule 8.  No mere repetition of facts, then specifying the black letter rule 9. Good analysis, not just correct legal rule 10.  No repetition of statements 11. Position taking when required 12. Appropriate use of policy and principle 13. Legible handwriting 14.  Neat page 15. Use of margins, indentions, proper numbering, headings and paragraphs 16. Responsive to instructions 17. Accomplished on time

II. P hilosophy  Philia –   love; Sophia  –  Wisdom = love or pursuit of wisdom - it is the knowledge of all things through their ultimate causes acquired through the light of reasons (St. Thomas Aquinas)

- It’s a study that seeks to understand the mysteries of existence and reality, discover the nature of truth and knowledge, and find what is of basic value and importance in life. 1. Branches 1.1. Logic  Logos –   thought or reasoning - It is the science and art of reasoning and critical thinking, concerned with distinguishing what is true from what is wrong, valid from invalid, and be critical about it. - It provides sound methods for distinguishing good from bad reasoning. 1.2. Psychology  Psyche –   mind; Logos –  study = study of the mind - A branch of philosophy that deals with the study of human behavior and human mind. -It aims to understand the role of mental functions of an individual on behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain behaviors. 1.3. Epistemology  Episteme –   knowledge; logos –  study = study of knowledge - also known as the theory of knowledge - It’s concerned with the nature of knowledge, its scope, possibility, and general basis. - seeks the criteria for truth and in distinguishing what is adequate (true) from inadequate (false) knowledge 1.4. Metaphysics  Meta –  beyond  - deals with the study of the nature and realities of being, and of all reality (visible and invisible, what is it, why is it, and how are we to understand it) - seeks basic criteria for determining what sorts of things are real - considered as the most abstract part of philosophy 1.5. Aesthetics  Aesthesis –  of sense perception or harmony - deals with beauty and harmony, hence, also known as philosophy of art - it’s a study of art and of value judgments about art, and of beauty in general - questions in aesthetics include: how artistic creations are to be interpreted and evaluated, how the arts are related to one another, to natural beauty and other aspects of human life 1.6. Ethics  Ethos –   norms - deals with the study of morality of human act and judgment - it takes up the meanings of moral concepts and formulates principles to guide moral decisions - also called us moral philosophy as it seeks to determine whether an action is to be considered good or bad 1.6. Cosmology Cosmos- universe; logos –   study - the study of inanimate objects in the universe, the material world –   its origin, nature, structure, ultimate principles of bodily natures and natural laws 2. Logic

• It is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. • It is an organized body of knowledge, or science that evaluates arguments. • It has the aim to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own. • To discover and make available those criteria that can be used to test arguments for correctness. • A Logician is concerned primarily with the correctness of the completed process of reasoning. TEST • How would you distinguish between correct and incorrect reasoning? • TOOLS = knowing the methods, principles and techniques. 1. Does the conclusion reached follow from the premises used or assumed? 2. Do the premises provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion? 3. If the premises do provide adequate grounds for affirming the conclusion, • If asserting the premises to be true warrant asserting the conclusion also to be true, • Then the reasoning is correct. Otherwise, it is incorrect. 2.1. Syllogism - Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises. - A deductive argument consisting of two premises and one conclusion. > The logical form of an argument. Ex: All congressmen are politicians. Manny Pacquiao is a congressman. Therefore, Manny Pacquiao is a politician.

1. Those in which the premises really do support the conclusion; 2. Those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. • In order to dis tinguish correct from incorrect arguments, they must be recognized when they occur and must be able to identify the premises and conclusions of those arguments. • ENTHYMEME  –   An argument that is stated incompletely, the unstated part of it  being taken for granted. - not stated but is assumed to be understood - the arguer supposes that it is unquestioned common knowledge - its effectiveness depends on the hearer’s knowledge

** Recognizing Arguments  –   in general, a passage contains an argument if it purports to  prove something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument. Conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something: 1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons. –  it must express a factual claim. 2. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence supports or implies something, that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence or reasons. –  it must express an inferential claim. - is simply the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process. - that something supports or implies something or that something follows from something.

** Non I nferential Passages (No A rg ument) 2.2. Proposition - a statement; what is typically asserted using a declarative sentence, and hence always either true or false –   although its truth or falsity may be unknown. - Typically stated in declarative sentences, but they sometimes appear as commands, rhetorical questions, or noun phrases. - RHETORICAL QUESTION  –   an utterance used to make a statement, but which  because it is in interrogative form and is therefore neither true nor false, does not literally assert anything. > sometimes used synonymously with “Statement” . STATEMENT - A proposition; what is typically asserted by a declarative sentence, but not the sentence itself. Every statement must either be true or false, although the truth or falsity of a given statement may be unknown. - Is a sentence that is either true or false  –  in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence. > may be compound, meaning it contains several propositions Ex: God exists. The Earth is further from the Sun than Venus. 2.3. Argument • Is any group of propositions of which on is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one. • Is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). > An argument is valid if the conclusion is true whenever the premises are all true. The  propositions in an argument must be related to one another. TWO BASIC GROUPS:

1. A warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or detrimental situation. 2. A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision or course of conduct. 3. A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone happens to believe or think about s omething. 4. Loosely associated statements may be about the same general subject, but they lack a claim that one of them is proved by the others. 5. A report consists of a group of statements that they convey information about some topic or event. 6. An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the purpose of the subsequent sentences in the passage is not only to flesh out the topic sentence BUT also to prove it, then the passage is an argument. 7. An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show something means or how it is done. 8. An explanation is an expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon. Explanandum –   is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained. Explanans – is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining. 9. Conditional statement is an “if (antecedent), … then (consequent) …” statement. Not argument because there is no assertion that either the antecedent or the consequent is true. But their inferential content may be re-expressed to for arguments. Thus: a. A single conditional statement is not an argument  b. A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or conclusion (or both) of an argument c. The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an argument.

2.3.1. Premise - In an argument, the prepositions upon which inference is based; the prepositions that are claimed to provide grounds or reasons for the conclusion. - Are the statements that set forth the reasons and evidence. > The basic statement upon whose truth an argument is based, a basic assertion Premise indicators: (not conclusive that there is an argument; might be an explanation to other paragraphs) Since, Because, For, As, Follows from, As shown by, Inasmuch as, In that, As indicated by, Owing to, As indicated by, The reason is that, For the reason that, May be inferred from, May be derived from, May be deduced from, In view of the fact that, Seeing that, Given that 2.3.2. Conclusion - In any argument, the proposition to which the other propositions in the argument are claimed to give support, or for which they are given as reasons. - Of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of other propositions of the argument, and these other propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed) as providing support or reasons for accepting the conclusion, are the premises of that argument. - Is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words, the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. Conclusion indicators: (highlights an argument) Therefore, Hence, Thus, So, Accordingly, In consequence, Consequently, Proves that, As a result, For this reason, Wherefore, It must be implied that, Implies that, For these reasons, It follows that, We may infer, I conclude that, Which shows that, Which means that, Which entails that, Which implies that, Which allows us to, Which infer that, Which points to the conclusion that, We may conclude, It follows that

Ex: Hillary Clinton must be a communist spy. Premises She supports socialized health care. It follows that everyone who supports socialized health care is a communist spy. –   Conclusion 1 is a prime number. 3 is a prime number. Premises 5 is a prime number. 7 is a prime number. Therefore, all odd integers between 0 and 8 are prime numbers. - Conclusion 2.4. Opposition > the relationship between two prepositions having the same subject and the same predicate  but differ as to quantity or to quality, or to both > this is the process of inferring from the known preposition (i.e. a proposition that is already assumed to be true or false) to its opposite proposition Ex: If all Filipinos are patriotic is true, then not all Filipinos are patriotic will be false.

If some bananas are apples is false, then all bananas are apples will also be false.

- A process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of some other proposition/s - It is the reasoning process expressed by an argument - It is used interchangeably with ‘argument’ > the process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of some other  propositions 2.5.1. Deduction A deductive argument claims to provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion; if it does so it is valid, if it does not it is invalid. An argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. > A process of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from a set of premises. It is usually confined to cases in which the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises. > It works from the general to the specific and often referred to as a top-down approach. Ex: a. There were 20 people originally. There are 19 persons currently. Therefore, someone is missing.  b. Peter is Jon’s brother, so Jon must be Peter’s brother. c. You will succeed if you work hard. You will be happy if you succeed. Therefore, you will be happy if you work hard.

-

2.5.2. Induction An inductive argument claims that its premises give only some degree of  probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion. An argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true. > A process of reasoning from empirical premises to empirical conclusions. It is a kind of ampliative argument, wherein the conclusion goes beyond their premises. In other words, something beyond the context of the premises is inferred as probable or supported by them. > It works from observations toward generalization, probabilities, and theories; often called a  bottom-up approach. Ex: a. There is smoke. Therefore, there is fire.  b. Two-thirds of Filipinos I know in Canada are illegal immigrants. Therefore, majority of Filipinos in Canada are illegal immigrants. c. I have seen many persons with creased earlobes who had heart attacks. Therefore, all  persons who have creased earlobes are prone to have heart attacks.

-

2.6. Hypothesis > a tentative insight or concept that is not yet verified but if true would explain certain facts or  phenomena. > a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument > it is the antecedent of a conditional statement Ex: a. If he studies diligently, he will top the bar exam.  b. If a number is divisible by 10, then it is divisible by 2. c. Duterte will be a good presidential candidate if he decides to run.

If some students are lazy is false, then not all students are lazy will be true. 2.5. Inference

2.7. Reasoning > The process of using a rational, systematic series of steps bases on sound procedures and given statements to arrive at a conclusion.

> The use of logical thinking in order to find results or draw conclusions 2.7.1. A Priori  From the earlier  – literally, “before experience”; a priori knowledge is before or independent of experience. For example, according to some philosophers, we know every event has a cause even though we have not experienced every event. > it rests on rational intuitions or insights; knowledge gained through deduction and not through empirical evidence Ex: a. All squares are rectangles.  b. It is always wrong to punish an innocent person. c. All rubies are red. 2.7.2. A Posteriori  From what comes after  – literally, “after experience”; a posteriori knowledge is that derived from experience. This is in contrast to a priori knowledge. > used to indicate inductive reasoning; something that is known based on logic that is derived from experience > reason can be involved in an a posteriori statement, but that reason still stems from an assumption made empirically, rather than one derived from an abstract truth Ex: a. One’s date of birth is something known a posteriori.  b. The chemical component of water is H2O. 3. Fallacies of Relevance - a fallacy in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion > The premises of arguments with fallacies of relevance support a different conclusion, and the conclusion of such arguments require different premises if it is to be established. > the connection between the premises and conclusion is emotional 3.1. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam  Appeal to Ignorance > occurs when it is asserted that a given statement is true or false simply because it cannot be  proven otherwise > it appeals to a lack of information to prove appoint Ex: a. Ghosts or aliens exist since no one has been able to disprove their existence.  b. Pedro is an honest student because I’ve never caught him cheating. 3.2. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam  Appeal to Inappropriate Authority > appeal is made to parties who do not have the proper authority or legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand > it substitutes general eminence for genuine expertise > it cites the expertise of a person who has reputation in a certain field Ex: a. Take this medicine for your stomachache. It relieved my stomachache before.  b. I believe my friend’s political opinions. He’s smart since he’s a philosophy teacher. 3.3. Argumentum Ad Hominem  Argument against the Person

- a fallacy in which the argument relies upon an attack against the person taking the  position - an informal fallacy committed when, rather than attacking the substance of some  position, one attacks the person of its advocate, either abusively or as a consequence of his or her special circumstances. Positioning the Well  –   A variety of abusive ad hominem argument in which continued rational exchange is undermined by attacking the good faith or intellectual honesty of the opponent. > the attack on the person is logically irrelevant to the truthfulness of the argument Ex: a. Don’t believe his expose, he was a drug-addict.  b. You support the Bangsamoro Law only because you’re a Noytard. c. You say I’m not smart? You too! 3.4. Argumentum Ad Populum  Appeal to People or Populace An informal fallacy in which the support given for some conclusion is an appeal to  popular belief An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion is an inappropriate appeal to multitude. > one attempts to influence other’s judgment by appealing to their prejudices and attitudes that have nothing to do with matter at hand > uses emotion-laden terms to sway people en masse Ex: a. Facial cleanser advertisement: Ang sikreto ng mga gwapo!  b. Religion: If you do this or that, you will be saved. 3.5. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam  Appeal to Pity - A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason. - An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion is emotions –   fear, envy, pity of the listeners > appeal to emotion, which is misplaced Ex: a. Lawyer: Acquit my client for he is the breadwinner of his family.  b. Suitor: Accept my love for I have undergone numerous hardships in life. 3.6. Argumentum Ad Baculum  Appeal to Force - a fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or veiled threat of force - committed when force, or the threat of force, is relied on to win consent. > accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the reader/listener from acknowledging a missing premise that if acknowledged would be seen as false Ex: a. Judge, rule in favor of my client or I’ll expose your love affair with your clerk.  b. Superintendent, cut the budget or do I need to remind you of the fate of your predecessors who cannot keep down costs. c. Teacher threatens students with failing grade if the latter do not give him a satisfactory rating.

Red Herring a fallacy in which attention is deliberately deflected away from the issue under discussion an informal fallacy committed when some distraction is used to mislead and confuse

-

Straw Man - an fallacy in which an opponent’s position is depicted as being more extreme or unreasonable than is justified by what was actually asserted. - An informal fallacy committed when the position of one’s opponent is misrepresented ad that distorted position is made the object of attack. 4. Fallacies of P resumption - Any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false. - A group of fallacies that occur when the premises of an argument presume what they  purport to prove. > concerned with problems of deductive reasoning > occurs when an argument rests on some hidden assumption that, if not hidden, would make it clear that there is insufficient evidence for the conclusion 4.1. Complex Question - An informal fallacy in which a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in the question - An informal fallacy that occurs when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions. > also called as the “loaded question” > nothing more than a trick to induce another to assent the trick Ex: a. Mr. Accused, did anyone help you kill your husband?  b. Have you stopped taking drugs? c. What did you do with the knife after stabbing him with it? 4.2. Non Cause Pro Causa (False Cause) - A fallacy in which something that is not really the cause is treated as a cause - An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist and appeal to the people. > the mistake in assuming that A caused B simply because A preceded B Ex: a. Prayer works. Whenever there’s a storm, I pray that our house would be spared, and not once had we been hit.  b. The moon was full on Thursday. I overslept on Friday morning. Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep. c. Efren Bata Reyes lost the tournament because he took a bath prior to the final game. 4.3. Petitio Precipii (Begging the Question)  Request for the Source - The informal fallacy of begging the question; an argument in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. - An informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate  premises provide adequate support for the conclusion –   by leaving out a key premise  by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle. > occurs when one assumes the truth of what he seeks to prove in the very effort to prove it

> committed when the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a key premise, restarting a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or reasoning in circle. Ex: a. The Bible affirms that it is inerrant. Whatever it says is true. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.  b. I have a right to say what I want, therefore you have no right to silence me. 4.4. Ignorantio Elenchi (Missing the Point; Irrelevant Conclusion) - A fallacy in which the premises support different conclusion from the one that is  proposed. - An informal fallacy committed when one refutes, not the thesis one’s interlocutor is advancing, but some different thesis that one mistakenly imputes to him or her. - occurs when the premise of an argument entails one particular conclusion but a completely different conclusion is actually drawn > often arises when a particular objective is advocated but only a generalized support is offered that could support an alternative approach > the arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his premises that results to a conclusion that entirely misses the point of the issue Ex: a. Cheating during examinations is becoming very rampant. Therefore, examinations must be abolished so that students will not anymore engage in cheating.  b. My grandmother wants to retire in the province where real property taxes are low. She is thinking of Batangas, but real property taxes are quite high there. Therefore, she should not retire in Batangas but in Cavite. 4.5. Accident (Sweeping Generalization) - An informal fallacy committed when a generalization is applied to individual cases that it does not properly govern. - An informal fallacy that occurs when a general rule is wrongly applied to a specific case in the conclusion. > the mistake often lies in failing to recognize that there may be exceptions to a general rule > a result of careless or deliberately deceptive use of generalizations Ex: a. Jogging is good for the health. Therefore, a person with heart disease could improve his health by jogging.  b. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Therefore, my client cannot be held liable for what she said. c. Sixty men can do a job sixty times as quickly as one man. One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds. Therefore, sixty men can dig a hole in one second. d. Ilocanos are thrifty. He is an Ilocano. Therefore, he is thrifty. 4.6. Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization) - An informal fallacy committed when one moves carelessly or too quickly from individual cases to a generalization - An informal fallacy that occurs when a general conclusion is drawn from atypical specific cases. > opposite of fallacy of accident; a mistaken use of inductive reasoning > committed when one establishes a broad principle or general rule based on specific factual observations > occurs when one argues that what is true of a few members of a class must also be true of all the members of that class Ex:

a. Babae kasi kaya nabunggo.  b. The recent bar topnotcher is a Bedan graduate. Therefore, all Bedan graduates will top the  bar exam. c. This infant milk is found to be best for babies. Therefore, the said milk is best for everybody, including adults. d. Two of my friends are Ilocanos and they are both thrifty. Therefore, all Ilocanos are thrifty. 4.7. False Dilemma > also called as “false dichotomy” > occurs when an argument is built upon the assumption that there are only two choices or  possible outcomes when actually there are several > The argument is actually valid, but since the disjunctive premise is false or probably false, the argument is typically unsound. Ex: a. Either a Creator brought the universe into existence or it came out of nothing. Nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, a Creator brought the universe into existence.  b. Either you are a fan of Aldub or Pastillas Girl. You like the Adlub page. Therefore, you are an Aldub fan. c. Japan will support either China or the Philippines in the territorial disputes. The Prime Minister of Japan had a meeting with the Philippine President. Therefore, Japan will support the Philippines in the dispute. 5. Fallacies of Ambiguity - Any fallacy caused by a shift in or confusion of meaning within an argument - A group of informal fallacies that occur because of an ambiguity in the premises or conclusion. > committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase, or on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement > Appear to support their conclusions only due to the imprecise use of language. Once terms are clarified, fallacies of ambiguity are exposed. 5.1 Equivocation - A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used in different  parts of an argument - An informal fallacy that occurs because some word or group of words are used either to implicitly or explicitly in two different senses. > committed when the same word or phrase is used in different senses within one line argument > Equivocation alone is not fallacious; It is only when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. Ex: a. All banks are beside rivers. Therefore, the bank where I deposit my money is beside a river.  b. Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, Jesus is the Bible. c. Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection. I say that death is the end of life. Hence, death is the perfection of life. 5.2. Amphiboly - A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can be interpreted in more than one way; the argument contains a premise based upon one interpretation, while the conclusion relies on a different interpretation. - An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect.

> amphiboly means “indeterminate;” it’s an ambiguity that results from ambiguous grammar  > An amphibologous statement may be true in one interpretation and false in another. This error is due to a lack of verbal clarity because of a grammatical error. Ex: a. The anthropologists went to a remote area and took photographs of some native women, but they were not developed.  b. A reckless motorist struck and injured a student who was jogging through campus in his  pick-up truck. Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pick-up truck. c. To be repaired: the rocking chair of an old lady with two broken legs. 5.3. Accent - An informal fallacy committed when a term or phrase has a meaning in the conclusion of an argument different from its meaning in one of the premises; the difference arising chiefly from the change in emphasis given to the words used. - A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey two different meanings within an argument and the difference is based on changes in emphasis given to words within the  phrase. > This kind of fallacy depends on where the stress is placed on a word or sentence. Ex: a. I resent that letter.  b. Jorge turned in his assignment on time today. Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late. 5.4. Composition - An informal fallacy in which an argument erroneously assigns attribute to a whole (or a collection) based on the fact that parts of that whole (or member of that collection) have those attributes. - A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole - An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. > an inductive error; argues that what is true to parts of a the whole is true to the whole itself Ex: a. Every course I took in college was well-organized. Therefore, my college education was well-organized.  b. The prosecution offered nothing but circumstantial pieces of evidence. Therefore, my client’s guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. (the totality of the pieces of evidence may have proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt. c. The individual parts of a large tractor are lightweight. Therefore, the entire machine is lightweight. 5.5. Division - A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the whole - An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or class) onto its parts (or members) > a deductive error; argues that what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts Ex: a. The Archdiocese of Borongan is almost 100 years old. Fr. Neil is a priest of the Archdiocese of Borongan. Therefore, Fr. Neil is almost 100 years old.

 b. ABC and Associates is an immoral law firm that engages in unethical practices. Atty. Juan is employed at ABC and Associates. Therefore, Atty. Juan is immoral. c. Pedro is an employee of an influential company. Therefore, Pedro is influential.

6. Definition - An expression in which one word or set of symbols (the definiens) is provided, which is claimed to have the same meaning as the definiendum, the word or symbol defined. - A group of words that assigns a meaning to a word or group of words - DEFINIENS  –  in any definition, a symbol or group of symbols that is set to have the same meaning as the definiendum. - In any definition, the word or group of words that do the defining - DEFINIENDUM  –  in a definition, the word or symbol is defined - in a definition, the word or group of words that are proposed to be defined. 6.1. Stipulative Definition - A definition in which a new symbol is introduced to which some meaning is arbitrarily assigned, as opposed to a lexical definition, a stipulative definition cannot be correct or incorrect. - A definition that assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. > If accepted, a stipulative definition creates a usage that had never existed previously. Ex: a. Let us define MBA as married but available.  b. I suggest using apatheist to refer to people who are apathetic to the question of the existence of any gods. 6.2. Lexical (Real) Definition - A definition that reports a meaning the definiendum (the term to be explained) already has and thus a definition that can usually be judged correct or incorrect. - A definition intended to report the way a word is actually used in a language. > usually found in a dictionary; the goal is to inform someone else of the accepted meaning of the term Ex: a. Prime numbers refer to any integer divisible only by 1 and itself.  b. Religion is defined as the belief in a superhuman controlling power. 6.3. Precising Definition - A definition devised to eliminate vagueness by delineating a concept more sharply - A definition intended to reduce the vagueness of a word > Though there is an element of stipulation, it is not a pure stipulative definition. It must remain to a connected established usage; one is not free to assign whatever meaning. But it incorporates additional attributes that narrows the term’s scope. Ex: a. Bus companies are mandated to give discounts to old people. An old person is any person of age 65 or above.  b. If by language, we refer to any system of communication, then birds and other animals do make use of language. 6.4. Theoretical Definition - A definition that encapsulates an understanding of the theory in which that term is a key element

- A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that gives a certain characterization to the entities that the term denotes. > Theoretical definitions are special cases of stipulative or précising definition, distinguished  by their attempt to establish the use of a term within the context of a broader intellectual framework. Ex: a. Cancer is an abnormal growth of cells which tend to proliferate in an uncontrolled way and, in some cases, to metastasize.  b. Love, according to Platonism, is a non-sexual relationship between heterosexual friends. c. Heat means the energy associated with the random motion of the molecules of a substance. 6.5. Persuasive Definition • A definition formulated and used to resolve a dispute influencing attitudes or stirring emotions, often relying upon the use of emotive language. • A definition intended to engender a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum. > an attempt to attach emotive meaning to the use of a term > can be judged true or false, but what matters is its effectiveness Ex: a. Taxation is the procedure of raising government revenues to preserve and sustain public needs.  b. Taxation is the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people and infringe upon their  private property. c. Abortion is the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings. Techniques for Defining Terms A. Denotative Definition (Extension) - A definition that identifies the extension of a term, by (for example) listing the members of the class of objects to which the term refers; the members of that class are thus denoted. - A class definition that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members of the class that the term denotes. 1. Definition by examples 2. Ostensive (Demonstrative) Definition - A kind of denotative definition in which the objects denoted by the term being defined are referred to by means of pointing, or with some other gesture; sometimes called a demonstrative definition. - A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by pointing to members of the class that the word denotes. 3. Quasi-Ostensive Definition - A variety of denotative definition that relies upon gesture, in conjunction with a descriptive phrase. 4. Subjective Intension - The set of all attributes that the speaker believes to be possessed by objects denoted by a given term. 5. Objective Intension - The total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the extension of a term.

6. Conventional Intension - The commonly accepted intension of a term; the criteria generally agreed upon for deciding, with respect to any object, whether it is part of the extension of that term.

B. Intentional Definition - A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by indicati ng the qualities or attributes that the word connotes. Synonymous Definition - A kind of connotative def in which a word, phrase or symbol is defined in terms of another word, phrase or symbol hat has the same meaning and is already understood. Operational Definition - A kind of connotative def that states that the term to be defined is correctly applied to a given case if and only if the performance of the specified operations in that case yields a specified result. Definition by Genus and Difference - A type of connotative definition of which a term that first identifies the larger class (genus) of which the definiendum is a species or subclass, and then identifies the attribute (difference) that distinguishes the members of that species from members of all other species in that genus. > The advantage of this method is that it not only conveys the meaning of the word but also gives an analysis of the characteristics of the phenomenon itself. 6.6. Denotation (Extension) and Connotation (Intension) Ex: -Denotation a. An ocean is a body of water such as the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Antarctic, and Arctic  bodies of water.  b. A ship may be a cargo ship, passenger ship, battle ship, or sailing ship. c. Inventors, like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and the Wright brothers, create new objects.

-Connotation a. A dog is a member of the canine family that has four legs and the ability to bark.  b. A ship is a vehicle for conveyance of water. c. An inventor is a clever, intuitive, creative, and imaginative person. 6.7. Definition by Genus and Difference Ex: a. A chair is a piece of furniture designed to be sat upon by one person at a time.  b. Humans are rational animals. c. Daughter means a female offspring.