Deductive Reasoning in Law

Deduction and Induction

• Logicians usually distinguish deductive from inductive
reasoning. Both of these forms of reasoning play
important roles in our legal system. When appellate
courts, for instance, would determine whether the
correct rules of law were applied to the given facts or
whether the rules of evidence were properly applied
in establishing the facts, they employ deductive
reasoning.
• Deductive reasoning is like following a clear path from
a big idea to a specific conclusion. In criminology, it's
used when we want to make sure the rules and facts
in a legal case match up correctly.
Example: Imagine you're a detective investigating a
crime. You have a rule that says "if someone's
fingerprints are found at the crime scene, they might
be the culprit." You find fingerprints at the crime
scene. Using deductive reasoning, you conclude that
the person with those fingerprints could be the
suspect. It's like following a rule to reach a specific
answer.
•In cases when we want to determine the facts of
the case and to establish them through causal
arguments, probability or scientific methods, the
reasoning chiefly relied upon is inductive.
•How are these two patterns of reasoning
different? Although all reasoning or
arguments attempt to provide support that
is, evidence or reasons for their -
conclusions, they differ greatly in the
amount of support they intend to provide..
• Some arguments try to prove the truth of their
conclusions beyond any doubt. Others merely try to
show that their conclusions are plausible or likely or
probable to be true given the premise(s). The first kind
of argument is a deductive argument and the second
kind is an inductive argument. In other words, we are
reasoning deductively when our premises intend to
guarantee the truth of our conclusion while we reason
inductively when our premises are intended to provide
good (but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of our
conclusion.
•So, in criminology, deductive reasoning is
about being super certain, while inductive
reasoning is about making a strong case
based on evidence, even if it's not airtight.
Here are some examples of deductive
reasoning:
•All misdemeanors are criminal offenses;
Driving under the influence of alcohol is at
misdemeanor:
•Hence, driving under the influence of
alcohol is a criminal offense.
• In simple terms, this argument is saying that:
1.All misdemeanors are types of criminal offenses.
2.Driving under the influence of alcohol is considered a
misdemeanor.
• Therefore, it concludes:
Driving under the influence of alcohol is a criminal offense.
• So, the argument is using the fact that all misdemeanors
are criminal offenses and that driving under the influence
is a misdemeanor to say that it's also a criminal offense. It's
like saying, "Since all apples are fruits, and this is an apple,
then it must be a fruit."
Example 2
If quartz scratches glass, then
quartz is harder than glass;

Quartz scratches glass; Therefore,

quartz is harder than glass.
If something (in this case, quartz) can scratch or
damage another thing (glass), then the first thing
(quartz) is tougher or harder than the second thing
(glass).
Quartz can scratch glass, so it can damage it.
• Therefore, it concludes:
Quartz is harder or tougher than glass.
• In essence, the argument is using the idea that if
one thing can scratch another, it means the first
thing is stronger or harder. Since quartz can scratch
glass, it's considered harder than glass.
• Notice how the conclusions of these arguments are
established by the premises with absolute certainty.
Each conclusion flows from its premises with logical
necessity; this means that, given the premises, the
conclusion could not possibly be false.
• There are times when we make an argument the
conclusion of which is not certain. This is not
necessarily a weakness for in many cases the most
that we can expect of an argument is to support its
conclusion with a degree of probability. Inductive
arguments simply claim that their conclusions are
likely or probable given the premises offered.
Example
Neil, a student in a Legal Logic class, has good study
habits and is always attentive in class discussions;
He is a consistent dean's lister and has never failed in
any subject he has taken in law school; and
Therefore, it is very probable that Neil will not fail in his
Legal Logic class.
•This is an inductive argument. Although it is a
strong argument, it does not provide an absolute
guarantee that Neil will not fail in his Legal Logic
class. There is still a remote possibility that he
will fail in the subject.
•If the premises are true then the conclusion will
very likely, or probably, be true; but the truth of
the premises cannot absolutely rule out the
possibility that the conclusion will be false. In
other words, the conclusion might turn out to be
false even though the premises are true.
Example of some other types of inductive
arguments
•The car can't start even though there is plenty of
gasoline in the tank; and It is likely that the
battery is already exhausted.
•In the last five years, the passing rate in the bar
exam has always been less than 25%; andSo we
can say that this year's successful bar examinees
toill probably not go beyond 25%.
•It is sometimes said that the basic
difference between deduction and
induction is that deduction moves from
general premises to particular conclusions,
whereas induction moves from particular
premises to general conclusions.
•Although this is generally the case, it is
wrong to use this as a basis of distinguishing
deduction from induction since there are
deductive arguments that move from
particular to general and inductive
arguments that move from general to
particular
Consider this as an example
•Three is a prime number ; Five is a prime
number; Seven is a prime number; and
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and
eight are prime numbers.
•All of J.K. Rowling's previous books have been
bestsellers. (general premise); and Therefore,
her next book will probably be a bestseller.
(particular conclusion)
• The first is a deductive argument but the reasoning
moves from particular premises to a general
conclusion, while the second is an inductive
argument but its reasoning flows from general to
particular. Thus, what makes an argument deductive
or inductive is not the pattern of particularity or
generality in the premises and conclusion. Rather, it
is the type of support the premises are claimed to
provide for the conclusion.
•To determine whether an argument is deductive
or inductive, we can rely on indicator words that
signal the kind of claim the argument makes. For
example, a phrase such as "it necessarily follows
that" almost always indicates that an argument
is deductive. Here are some common deductive
indicator words:
Certainly it is logical to conclude that
Definitely this logically implies that
Absolutely this entails that
Conclusively it must be the case that

This are common inductive coordinator words:

Probably one would expect that

Likely it is plausible to suppose that
Chances are it is reasonable to assume that
•When no indicator words are present to help us
decide whether an argument is deductive or
inductive, we just have to base our judgment on
the content of the premises and conclusion of
the argument is the conclusion intended to
follow with strict necessity from the premises or
is it intended to simply follow from the premises
with a degree of probability?
• Deduction and induction are ways of reasoning in which we
draw conclusions from given information. Here's a simple
explanation using examples related to a criminology course:
• Deduction: Deduction starts with general information and
uses it to reach specific conclusions. It's like starting with a
big idea and applying it to a particular situation. For
example:
General Premise: "All criminals break the law."
Specific Conclusion: "John broke the law."
In this deductive reasoning, we begin with the general rule
that all criminals break the law and then apply it to a specific
case, concluding that John, in this instance, broke the law.
• Induction: Induction, on the other hand, begins with specific
observations or examples and uses them to form a general idea. It's
like looking at specific instances and making a broader statement.
For example:
Specific Observations: "Crime rates are high in City A, City B, and City
C."
General Conclusion: "Cities with large populations tend to have
higher crime rates."
In this inductive reasoning, we start with specific examples of cities
with high crime rates and make a general conclusion that cities with
large populations are more likely to have high crime rates.
•The key point is that deduction and induction are
not limited to one specific direction (general to
specific or specific to general). What
distinguishes them is the kind of support the
given information provides for the conclusion.
•To determine whether an argument is deductive
or inductive, you can look for certain indicator
words:
1.Deductive Indicator Words suggest that the argument is deductive
and the conclusion follows with certainty. Examples include phrases
like "it necessarily follows that" or "it must be the case that.“

Premise: All murderers leave behind physical evidence at the crime

scene.
Premise: The suspect, John, left behind physical evidence at the crime
scene.
Now, let's use the deductive indicator words:
Conclusion: Therefore, it necessarily follows that John is a murderer.
• Inductive Coordinator Words suggest that the argument is
inductive and the conclusion is based on probability.
Examples include phrases like "probably," "likely," or
"chances are.“

1.Observation: In the past, most burglaries in this

neighborhood occurred at night when homeowners were
away.
2.Observation: Last night, a burglary took place in this
neighborhood.
Now, let's use an inductive coordinator word:
3.Conclusion: Therefore, it is likely that the burglary last night
also occurred at night when the homeowners were away.
• If there are no indicator words, you need to analyze the content of the
premises and conclusion to see if the conclusion is intended to follow with
strict necessity (deductive) or with a degree of probability (inductive).
Inductive Example
Premise: The security camera footage shows an unknown person entering the
building.
Premise: The building's alarm system was triggered at the same time.
Conclusion: Therefore, it can be inferred that the person entering the building
may have triggered the alarm.
Deductive Example
1.Premise: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.
2.Premise: The murder weapon matches the victim's cause of death.
3.Conclusion: Therefore, based on the presence of the suspect's fingerprints on
the murder weapon and the matching cause of death, it can be concluded
that the suspect was directly involved in the murder.
• Deductive : John is ill. If John is ill, then he won't be
able to attend our meeting today. Therefore, John
won't be able to attend our meeting today.

With this example, John's illness is sufficient to draw

the conclusion that he cannot come to the meeting.
Inductive: Two independent witnesses claimed John
committed the murder. John's fingerprints are the
only ones on the murder weapon. John confessed to
the crime. So, John committed the murder.

Inductive arguments like this example provided three

(3) supporting claims before the conclusion was
given. All the premises bring together the claim that
John committed the murder. If the argument was
reduced to the first premise to support the
conclusion, the result will not be as definitive. John
may or may not have committed the murder.
• It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts
improperly define "deduction" as reasoning from the
general to specific and define "induction" as reasoning
from the specific to the general. These definitions are
outdated and inaccurate. For example, according to
the more modern definitions given above, the
following argument from the specific to general is
deductive, not inductive, because the truth of the
premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion:
The members of the Dela Cruz clan are Alvin, Simon
and Theodore.
• Alvin serves in the PNP.
• Simon serves in the PNP.
• Theodore serves in the PNP.
• Therefore, all members of the Dela Cruz clan serve in
the PNP.
• Moreover, the following argument, even though it
reasons from the general to specific, is inductive :
Manila, as recorded in history, is always flooded every
June. Therefore, it will flood in Manila this coming
June.
(Though the records have shown that Manila is always
flooded during June, there is still a probability that it
may not happen next year.)
To aid in identifying valid arguments, symbols may be used to translate
statements into visual form.

OPERATOR NAME LOGICAL FUNCTION USED TO TRANSLATE

~ tilde negation not, it is not the case that
. Dot conjunction and, also, moreover
V wedge disjunction or, unless
ͻ horseshoe implication if…then…, only if
Ξ triple bar equivalence if and only if
1.Negation (~): If we have the statement "It is not sunny," you can
represent it as "~Sunny."
2.Conjunction (.): If we have the statements "I have a dog" and "I have
a cat," you can combine them using a dot (.) to say "I have a dog and I
have a cat," represented as "Dog . Cat."
3.Disjunction (V): If we have the statements "It's a Monday" and "It's a
Friday," you can use the wedge (V) to say "It's a Monday or It's a
Friday," represented as "Monday V Friday."
4.Implication (ͻ): If we have the statement "If it's raining, then I'll bring
an umbrella," you can represent it as "Raining ͻ Bring an umbrella."
This means "If it's raining, then I will bring an umbrella."
5.Equivalence (Ξ): If we have the statement "You can enter if and only if
you have a ticket," you can represent it as "Ticket Ξ Enter." This means
"You can enter if and only if you have a ticket, and if you have a ticket,
you can enter."
• To test the validity of arguments, a truth table is
needed. A truth table is used to determine when a
compound statement is true or false. They are used to
break a complicated compound statement into simple,
easier to understand parts. Truth Table for Negation
Truth Table for Negation
P ~P
CASE 1 T F
CASE 2 F T

As you can see "P" is a true statement then its

negation “~P" or "not P is false.
If "P" is false, then “~P" is true.
Conjunction
• When a compound statement involves two simple
statements P and Q, there are four possible cases for
the combined truth values of P and Q.
P Q
Case 1 T T
Case 2 T F
Case 3 F T
Case 4 F F
Suppose the teacher tells the class, "You can retake the
last exam and you can turn in this lab late.
•"Let P be "You can retake the last exam" and Q be
"You can turn in this lab late.
•"Which truth values for P and Q make it so that I kept
my promise, PA Q to the class?

•P: "You can retake the last exam.

•"Q: "You can turn this lab in late.
•"There are four possibilities.
1. P true and Q true, then P Λ Q is true.
2. P true and Q false, then P Λ Q is false.
3. P false and Q true, then P Λ Q is false.
4. P false and Q false, then P Λ Q is false.

Truth table for conjunctions

P Q P·Q
Case 1 T T T
Case 2 T F F
Case 3 F T F
Case 4 F F F
Disjunction
• Suppose the teacher tells the class that for this unit
you will receive full credit if "You do the homework
quiz or you do the lab.“
• Let P be the statement "You do the homework quiz,"
and let Q be the statement "You do the lab.“
• For which truth values of P and Q would I say that you
did what the teacher said, which is PVQ to receive full
credit for this unit?
P: "You do the homework quiz.“
Q: "You do the lab.“
There are four possibilities:

1. P true and Q true, then PV Q is true.

2. 2. P true and Q false, then PVQ is true.
3. 3. P false and Q true, then PV Q is true.
4. 4. P false and Q false, then PVQ is false.
P Q PVQ
Case 1 T T T
Case 2 T F T
Case 3 F T T
Case 4 F F F
•You can remember the truth tables for ~ (not),
•Λ (and), and, V(or) by remembering the following:
•~ (not) - Truth value is always the opposite
•Λ (and) - Always false, except when both are true
•V (or) - Always true, except when both are false
Syllogism
• In logic, deductive arguments are often expressed in
what we call "syllogisms." A syllogism is a three-line
argument - that is, an argument that consists of
exactly two premises and a conclusion. This form of
reasoning is what is lurking below the surface of most
judicial opinions and briefs.
A syllogism is a three-line argument, meaning it has
two statements at the beginning (premises) and one
statement at the end (a conclusion).
For example, consider this syllogism:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
•In logic, deductive arguments are often
expressed in what we call "syllogisms." A
syllogism is a three-line argument - that is, an
argument that consists of exactly two premises
and a conclusion. This form of reasoning is what
is lurking below the surface of most judicial
opinions and briefs.
•Gottfried Leibniz expressed the significance of
the syllogism three hundred years ago, calling its
invention "one of the most beautiful, and one of
the most important, made by the human mind."
• The value of syllogisms, particularly in legal reasoning, was
also recognized by the eighteenth century reformer Cesare
Beccaria who expressly advocated that, in the area of
criminal law, judges should follow syllogistic line of arguing:
"In every criminal case, a judge should come to a perfect
syllogism: the major premise should be the general law; the
minor premise, the act, which does or does not conform to
the law; and the conclusion, acquittal or condemnation."
Here's how it works with an example:
1.Major Premise (General Law): This is like a basic rule or law that
everyone should follow. For example, let's say there's a law that
says, "Stealing is against the law."
2.Minor Premise (Act): This is about the specific action or event
you're looking at. In this case, it's the act of stealing, where
someone took something that didn't belong to them.
3.Conclusion (Acquittal or Condemnation): Now, the judge uses the
general law and the specific act to decide what to do. If the person
didn't steal (followed the law), they should be set free (acquittal). If
they did steal (broke the law), they should be punished
(condemnation).
• But for all its power, the principle of the syllogism is
surprisingly straightforward: What is true of the universal is
true of the particular.
• If we know that all torts are civil wrongs and defamation is a
tort, therefore defamation is a civil wrong. It is no
exaggeration to say that the syllogism lies at the heart of
legal writing.
Example
•The Constitution prohibits non-Filipinos to
acquire or hold lands of the public
domain;Signing this deed of sale will enable Mr.
Jackson, an American, to acquire the title of this
land of the public domain; and Therefore,
signing this deed of sale is unconstitutional.
•Judicial power includes the power to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government;The Supreme
Court is granted judicial power; and
•Therefore, the Supreme Court has the
power to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
•The President can grant amnesty to the military
mutineers if there is a concurrence of a majority
of all the members of the Congress; Less than
half of the members of the Congress is in favor
of granting amnesty to the military mutineers;
and Therefore, the President cannot grant the
said amnesty.
• The President can grant amnesty to the military
mutineers if there is a concurrence of a majority of all
the members of the Congress; Less than half of the
members of the Congress is in favor of granting
amnesty to the military mutineers; and Therefore, the
President cannot grant the said amnesty.
Types of Syllogism

•Syllogisms are of two types: categorical and

hypothetical.
•A categorical syllogism is a syllogism composed
of categorical statements alone while a
hypothetical syllogism includes both categorical
and hypothetical statements.
1.Categorical Syllogism:
•A categorical syllogism is a type of structured
argument that uses statements that describe
categories or groups of things. In other words, it's
a way to reason using general categories.
Example in Criminology:
Major Premise (General Statement): "All criminals break the
law."
Minor Premise (Specific Statement): "John is a criminal."
Conclusion: "John breaks the law."
In this example, the major premise is a general rule that all
criminals break the law. The minor premise provides specific
information that John is a criminal. When you put these
together, you can logically conclude that John breaks the law
because he falls into the category of criminals, and the general
rule says all criminals break the law.
2.Hypothetical Syllogism:
• A hypothetical syllogism is a type of structured
argument that includes both categorical statements
(like in the previous example) and hypothetical
statements. Hypothetical statements are "if-then"
statements that talk about possible situations or
conditions.
Example in Criminology:
Major Premise (Hypothetical Statement): "If someone is found with a
weapon, then they might be considered a potential threat."
Minor Premise (Specific Statement): "Sarah was found with a weapon."
Conclusion: "Sarah might be considered a potential threat.“

In this example, the major premise is a hypothetical statement that

says if someone is found with a weapon, they might be considered a
potential threat. The minor premise provides specific information that
Sarah was found with a weapon. So, the conclusion is that Sarah might
be considered a potential threat based on the general rule in the major
premise.
•In criminology, hypothetical syllogisms help to
assess potential risks and situations based on
specific evidence and general rules. It's a way of
reasoning that combines general principles with
specific facts to make logical conclusions about
criminal cases or situations.
Properties of Categorical Syllogism
• Properties of a Categorical Statement
We can better understand categorical syllogisms and
their validity if we understand well the nature of
categorical statements. Every categorical statement has
quality and quantity as its properties.
Quality
• Quality: the quality of the statement may be affirmative or
negative.

Affirmative: An affirmative statement says something is true or

exists. For example, "Some suspects are guilty" is an affirmative
statement. It affirms that there are guilty suspects.
Negative: A negative statement says something is not true or does
not exist. For example, "No innocent people commit crimes" is a
negative statement. It negates the idea that innocent people commit
crimes.
•Affirmative Quality: "Many criminals have motives."
This statement affirms that there are motives among
criminals, which is a common belief in criminology.
It's a positive assertion.
•Negative Quality: "None of the witnesses are lying."
This statement negates the possibility that any of the
witnesses are lying, emphasizing the absence of lies.
•A Statement that has terms “no”, “not”,
“none”, and never is negative. In the
absence of such qualifiers, the statement is
affirmative.
Quantity
• Universal: A universal statement makes a claim about all
members of a group or category. For example, "All
murderers face legal consequences" is a universal
statement because it refers to every member of the group
of murderers.
• Particular: A particular statement makes a claim about
some members of a group but not necessarily all. For
example, "Some burglars get caught" is a particular
statement because it doesn't include every burglar, only
some.
• Universal Quantity: "Every suspect is considered innocent
until proven guilty." This statement is universal because it
applies to all suspects. In the legal system, the principle of
"innocent until proven guilty" is a universal concept.
• Particular Quantity: "A few juvenile offenders are first-time
offenders." This statement is particular because it only talks
about some juvenile offenders who are first-time offenders,
not all of them.
•Usually there are quantifiers that help determine
the quantity of the statement. For universal
statements we usually have : all, every, each, no,
none. For particular statement we have: some,
almost all, most, not all, several, many, few.
Quantity of the Predicate
• n logic, the "Quantity of the Predicate" refers to the
extent or scope of the statement when we talk about
how many individuals within a category are being
referred to. It helps us specify whether the statement
applies to all members of a group or just some of
them.
Universal Predicate:
This is like saying something applies to every member
of a group. In criminology, it would mean that a
statement is true for all instances in a particular
category.

Example: "All convicted felons serve time in prison."

This is a universal predicate statement. It's saying that
every person who has been convicted of a felony serves
time in prison. It implies that there are no exceptions.
Particular Predicate:
This is like saying something applies to only some
members of a group, not necessarily all of them. In
criminology, it would mean that a statement is true for
some instances in a particular category, but not
necessarily all.
Example: "Some robbery suspects wear masks during
the crime." This is a particular predicate statement. It
acknowledges that only some robbery suspects wear
masks, not all of them. It leaves room for the possibility
that there are robbery suspects who don't wear masks.
Group Activity: Analyzing Legal Reasoning
Scenarios
• Situation: The Crime Scene Deduction
1.Introduction (10 minutes):
1. Briefly explain the concept of deductive reasoning.
2. Present the scenario: A detective investigating a crime finds fingerprints at the crime scene.
The detective follows the deductive reasoning process to determine the possible suspect.
2.Group Discussion (15 minutes):
1. Discuss the elements of deductive reasoning in the scenario.
2. Break into small groups to identify the premises and the conclusion.
3. Encourage participants to share their thoughts on how deductive reasoning is applied in the
context of a crime investigation.
3.Group Presentation (10 minutes):
1. Each group presents their analysis of the deductive reasoning process.
2. Discuss how the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
3. Facilitate a brief Q&A session to clarify concepts.
• Group 2: Inductive Reasoning Exploration
• Situation: The Bar Exam Prediction
1.Introduction (10 minutes):
1. Introduce the concept of inductive reasoning.
2. Present the scenario: Predicting the success rate of bar examinees based on
historical data.
2.Group Discussion (15 minutes):
1. Discuss the elements of inductive reasoning in the scenario.
2. Break into small groups to identify the premises and the conclusion.
3. Encourage participants to share their perspectives on the probabilistic nature
of inductive reasoning.
3.Group Presentation (10 minutes):
1. Each group presents their analysis of the inductive reasoning process.
2. Discuss the notion of probability and how the conclusion is supported by the
premises.
3. Facilitate a brief Q&A session to address any uncertainties.
• Group 3: Deductive vs. Inductive Comparison
• Situation: The Legal Logic Class Prediction
1.Introduction (10 minutes):
1. Recap the key differences between deductive and inductive reasoning.
2. Present a scenario involving a Legal Logic class prediction about a student's
performance.
2.Group Discussion (15 minutes):
1. Discuss how the scenario incorporates elements of both deductive and inductive
reasoning.
2. Break into small groups to identify deductive and inductive aspects in the situation.
3. Explore how deductive reasoning guarantees conclusions, while inductive reasoning
provides a degree of probability.
3.Group Presentation (10 minutes):
1. Each group presents their analysis, highlighting the interplay of deductive and
inductive reasoning.
2. Facilitate a discussion on when and why both types of reasoning might be used in
legal contexts.
3. Conclude with a summary of the strengths and limitations of each type of reasoning.