LEGAL AND LOGICAL ENGINEERING Evangelista & Aquino Atty. Michael Guerrero CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY LOGIC Study of the principles and methods of good thinking. It is a science of thought that aims to determine and establish the criteria of good (good) thinking and bad (bad) thinking. The science of correct and informed thinking. Study the principles of good thinking. Its task is not only to describe how people argue, but to discover and provide the criteria against which arguments in favor of corrections can be tested. OBJECTIVES: 1. It examines the basic concepts of argumentation, inference, truth, falsehood, and validity. 2.
Using logic, we clarify our ideas, judge the acceptance of the claims and beliefs we encounter, defend and justify our claims and statements, and make rational and informed decisions. LEGAL REASONING Used when we apply laws, rules and regulations to specific facts and cases AND when interpreting constitutions and statutes, when we weigh basic principles and guidelines, and when we evaluate evidence and render judgments to make legal decisions. LEGAL REASONING is expressed through argumentation. Argument as an expression of reasoning ARGUMENT A group of statements that claim that one statement is true based on another statement. An argument is a group of statements, but not all groups of statements are arguments. CONCLUSION The statement that claims to be true. PREMISE The statement that serves as the basis or support for the conclusion. The arguments are classified as logical/illogical, valid/invalid, well-founded/unhealthy, based on the acceptance of the premises and the relationship between the premise and the conclusion. 2 BASIC ELEMENTS OF AN ARGUMENT: 1. CONCLUSION 2.
PREMISE INDICATORS (words/phrases that indicate the premise or conclusion of an argument) 1. INDICATORS OF INFERENCE PREMISE INDICATORS BECAUSE, BECAUSE, FOR, TO THE EXTENT THAT, ETC. Recognize arguments • ARGUMENT VS EXPLANATORY ARGUMENT VS EXPLANATION Argument – an attempt at explanation – an attempt to show THIS attempt to show WHY something is the case. Something is happening. The reasons are intended to substantiate an allegation in order to show that it is plausible or true. The reasons are usually the causes or factors that show how or why something came about. Providing a report of why an event was accepted as true is NOT intended to prove or justify the truth of a particular claim. Always has a conclusion and a premise.
Without giving by citing causes one, not an argument of the event can be explained. Both give reasons. But the nature of the reasons is different. KEY QUESTION to distinguish arguments from explanations: Is it the intention of the speaker to prove or establish that something is the case – that is, to provide reasons or evidence for accepting the claim as true? (THIS IS AN ARGUMENT) Does he intend to explain why something is the case – that is, to report on why an event took place or why something is like this? (THIS IS AN EXPLANATION) • ARGUMENT vs. Unsupported opinions Beliefs or expressions of opinion are statements about what a speaker or author believes, what can be true or false, rational/irrational, but they are part of arguments ONLY if the speaker or author claims that they are following/supporting other claims. UNSUPPORTED – Statements for which no premise (reason) was given • ARGUMENT vs CONDITIONAL DECLARATIONS CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS – contains an IF-THEN relation and are NOT arguments because there is no claim that 1 statement is true because of the other statement. 2 BASIC ELEMENTS: 1. ANTECEDENT (IF CLAUSE) 2. CONSISTENCY (THEN CLAUSE) Essential elements of the legal justification: 1. EDITION 2.
ARTICLE 3. FACT 4. ANALYSIS 5. CONCLUSION 1. SUBJECT (What is argued?) – Any matter of controversy or uncertainty; – A controversial point, a doubt, a question mark, or just for discussion or consideration. – Always phrased in one sentence of a question. – Refers to a legal issue, not just a controversial one. – The whole argument is guided by the question at hand. That is, the relevance of the premises depends on the issue addressed by the argument. Whatever answer we give, our position on the issue is reflected in the conclusion of our argument.
– The problem is different from a topic of conversation or litigation (plagiarism and defamation on the Internet are problems, not problems) 2. RULE (What legal rules govern the subject?) – Quoting a rule (law/regulation) and applying it to a set of facts to litigate a legal case. – Richard Neumann explained that the RULES have at least 3 parts: 1. A group of elements collectively called TEST 2. A result that occurs when all items are present (and the test is completed) 3. A causal term that determines whether the outcome is mandatory, prohibitive, discretionary, or declaratory. Exception: Present would cancel the result even if all items are present – The existing rule governing the problem should be SPECIFICALLY cited. – Even if a decision is based on what is “right”, because there is a rule that the decision on this type of issue is based on fairness. – The rule may take the FORM of cases or principles that the courts have already decided. The reasoning here is generally to argue that the case under discussion is similar to this previous case (stare decisis) or principle.
– Judges should be fully guided by the rules in order to make an informed decision. 3. FACT (What facts are relevant to the rule cited?) – “Material facts” are facts that correspond to the elements of the rule. In this case, the rule would be satisfied if the facts of this case included all the elements of the rule. – Reasonable reasoning requires that the facts not be one-sided – While certain facts may support and establish a particular legal claim, consideration must be given to the facts to be presented by counsel for the defendant and be able to prove that these facts do not protect the defendant from the charges against him. 4. ANALYSIS (To what extent are the facts applicable to said rule?) – Demonstrate a connection between the rules and the facts we present to determine what we claim – Whether the essential facts are actually in accordance with the law – Requires consideration of the basis on which the action could be said to be reckless or scandalous. – If the defendant is aware of the plaintiff`s patterns of behavior and vulnerability, the act is considered outrageous – Without the intent to cause emotional distress, reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient.5 CONCLUSION (What does the application of the rule to the given facts mean?) – This is the ultimate end of a legal argument. – This is what the facts, the rule and the analysis of the case represent. Assessment of legal reasoning 2 GENERAL CRITERIA: TEST OF SOUNDNESS OF LEGAL REASONING 1.
TRUTH 2. LOGIC 2 MAIN PROCESSES OF LEGAL ARGUMENTATION: CONCLUSION PRESENTATION OF FACTS (DERIVATION OF LEGAL CLAIMS OR JUDGMENTS FROM GIVEN LAWS AND FACTS) RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF TRUTH, WHICH RELATES TO THE QUESTION OF LOGIC First trial: REPRESENTATION OF TRUTH Second process: INFERENCE Deals with the issue: Deals with the issue: Are the premises given true or is the argument correct or acceptable? logic? Does the conclusion of the argument logically follow its premises? Questions refer to question refers to TRUTH LOGIC It is necessary that the conclusion of a legal argument be based on facts, because if the premises that are supposed to justify the truth of the legal claim (conclusion) are DEBATABLE, the conclusion is DEBATABLE. The premises of the argument must not only be facts, but the connection between the premises and the conclusion must be logically consistent, that is, the passage from the facts to the analysis and the main assertion must be valid. Court disputes are not about laws, but about facts. Judges decide what the facts are and what is not after weighing the evidence and arguments of both sides.