E.L.C.

LEGAL TECHNIQUE

CHAPTER 1

Logic The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect
reasoning.
Proposition An assertion that something is (or is not) the case; all propositions are either true or false.
Statement The meaning of a declarative sentence at a particular time; in logic, the word statement
is sometimes used instead of proposition.
Simple Proposition A proposition making only one assertion.
Compound Proposition A proposition containing two or more simple propositions.
Disjunctive (or Alternative) A type of compound proposition; if true, at least one of the of the component
Proposition propositions must be true.
Hypothetical (or Conditional) A type of compound proposition; it is false only when the antecedent is true and the
Proposition) consequent is false.
Inference A process of linking propositions by affirming one proposition on the basis of one or
more other propositions.
Argument A structured group of propositions, reflecting an inference.
Premise A proposition used in argument to support some other proposition.
Conclusion The proposition in argument that the other propositions, the premises, support.
Deductive Argument Claims to support it conclusion conclusively; one of the two classes of argument.
Inductive Argument Claims to support its conclusion only with some degree of probability; one of the two
classes of argument.
Valid Argument If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true; applies only to deductive
arguments.
Invalid Argument The conclusion is not necessarily true, even if all the premises are true; applies only to
deductive arguments.
Classical Logic Traditional techniques, based on Aristotles works, for the analyses of deductive
arguments.
Modern Symbolic Logic Methods used by most modern logicians to analyse deductive arguments.
Probability The likelihood that some conclusion (of an inductive argument) is true.
Truth An attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case.
Sound An argument that is valid and has only true premises.

CHAPTER 6

Deductive Argument
Valid Argument
Class
Categorical Propositions
Universal Affirmative
Propositions (A Propositions)
Universal Negative
Propositions (E Propositions)
Particular Affirmative
Propositions (I Propositions)
An argument that claims to establish its conclusions conclusively; one of the two classes
of arguments.
A deductive argument in which, if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
The collection of all objects that have some specified characteristics in common.
A proposition, used in deductive arguments, that asserts a relationship between one
category and some other category.
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is included or contained in another
class; All S is P.
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is excluded from the whole of another
class; No S is P.
Propositions that assert that two classes have some member or members in common;
Some S is P.
1
E.L.C. LEGAL TECHNIQUE

Particular Negative Propositions that assert that at least one member of a class is excluded from the whole of
Propositions (O Propositions) another class; Some S is not P.
Quality An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the proposition
affirms or denies some form of class inclusion.
Quantity An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the proposition
refers to all members (universal) or only some members (particular) of the subject
class.
Distribution A characterization of whether terms in a categorical proposition refer to all members of
the class designated by that term.
Opposition Any logical relation among the kinds of categorical propositions (A, E, I, O) exhibited on
the Square of Opposition.
Contradictories Two propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both be false.
Contraries Two propositions that cannot both be true; if one is true, the other must be false. They
can both be false.
Subcontraries Two propositions that cannot both be false; of one is false, the other must be true. They
can both be true.
Subalternation The opposition between a universal proposition (the superlatern) and its corresponding
particular proposition (the subaltern). In classical logic, the universal proposition implies
the truth of its corresponding particular proposition.
Square of Opposition A diagram showing the logical relationships among the four types of categorical
proposition (A, E, I, O). The traditional Square of Opposition differs from the modern
Square of Opposition in important ways.
Immediate Inference An inference drawn directly from only one premise.
Mediate Inference An inference drawn from more than one premise; the conclusion is drawn from the first
premise through the mediation of the second.
Conversion An inference formed by interchanging the subject and the predicate terms of a categorical
proposition. Not all conversions are valid.
Complement of a Class The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.
Obversion An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition and replacing the predicate
by its complement. Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical proposition.
Contraposition An inference formed by replacing the subject term of a proposition with the complement
of its predicate term, and replacing the predicate term by the complement of its subject
term. Not all contrapositions are valid.
Boolean Interpretation The modern interpretation of categorical propositions, in which universal proposition (A
and E) are not assumed to refer to classes that have members.
Venn Diagrams A method of representing classes and categorical propositions using overlapping circles.
Existential Fallacy A fallacy in which the argument relies on the illegitimate assumption that a class has
members, when there is no explicit assertion that it does.

CHAPTER 7

Syllogism Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises.
Categorical Syllogism A deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions that together contain
exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly two of the constituent propositions.
Standard-Form Categorical A categorical syllogism in which the premises and the conclusions are all standard-form
Syllogism categorical propositions (A, E, I, and O) and are arranged with the major premise first,
then the minor premise second, and the conclusion last.

2
E.L.C. LEGAL TECHNIQUE

Major Term/Major Premise The major term is the term that occurs as the predicate of the conclusion in a standard-
form syllogism. The major premise is the premise that contains the major term.
Minor Term/Minor Premise The minor term is the term that occurs as the subject of the conclusion in a standard-
form syllogism. The minor premise is the premise that contains the minor term.
Middle Term The term that occurs in both premises, but never in the conclusion, of a standard-form
syllogism.
Mood One of the 64 3-letter characterization of categorical syllogism determined by the forms
of the standard-form propositions it contains.
Figure The logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position of the middle term in its
premises; there are four possible figures.
Fallacy of Four Terms A formal mistake in which a categorical syllogism contains more than three terms.
Fallacy of the Undistributed A formal mistake in which a categorical syllogism contains a middle term that is not
Middle distributed in either premise.
Fallacy of the Illicit Major A formal mistake in which the major term of a syllogism is undistributed in the major
premise, but is distributed in the conclusion.
Fallacy of the Illicit Minor A formal mistake in which the minor term of a syllogism is undistributed in the minor
premise, but is distributed in the conclusion.
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises A formal mistake in which both the premises of a syllogism are negative.
Fallacy of Drawing an A formal mistake in which one premise of a syllogism is negative, but the conclusion is
Affirmative Conclusion from affirmative.
Negative Premises
Existential Fallacy As a formal fallacy, the mistake of inferring a particular conclusion from two universal
premises.
Barbara The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AAA-1.
Camestres The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AEE-2.
Camenes The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AEE-4.
Celarent The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure EAE-1.
Cesare The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure EAE-2.
Darii The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AII-1.
Datisi The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AII-3.
Disamis The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure IAI-3.
Dimaris The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure IAI-4.
Baroko The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AOO-2.
Ferio The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure EIO-1.
Festino The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure EIO-2.
Ferison The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure EIO-3.
Fresision The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure EIO-4.
Bokardo The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure OAO-3.

CHAPTER 8

Syllogistic Argument
Reduction to Standard Form
Singular Proposition
An argument that is a standard-form categorical syllogism, or can be formulated as one
without any change in meaning.
Reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard form.
A proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs (or does not belong) to a
particular class.
3
E.L.C.
Unit Class
Exclusive Proposition
Exceptive Proposition
Parameter
Uniform Translation
Enthymeme
First-Order Enthymeme
Second-Order Enthymeme
Third-Order Enthymeme
Sorites
Disjunctive Syllogism
Hypothetical Syllogism
Modus Ponens
Fallacy of Affirming the
Consequent
Modus Tollens
Fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent
Dilemma
Simple/Complex Dilemma
CHAPTER 9
Simple Statement
Compound Statement
Conjunction
Truth Value
Truth-Functional Component
Truth-Functional Compound
Statement
Truth-Functional Connective
LEGAL TECHNIQUE
A class with only one member.
A proposition asserting that the predicate applies only to the subject named.
A proposition making two assertions, that all members of the same class except for
members of one of its subclasses are members of some other class.
An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion into standard form.
Reducing propositions into a standard-form syllogistic argument by using parameters or
other techniques.
An argument containing an unstated proposition.
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is taken for granted is the
major premise.
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is taken for granted is the
minor premise.
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is taken for granted is the
conclusion.
An argument in which the conclusion is inferred from any number of premises through a
chain of syllogistic inferences.
A form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction and the conclusion claims the
truth of one of the disjuncts. Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid.
A form of argument containing at least one conditional proposition as a premise.
Hypothetical syllogisms can be pure (where all premises are conditional) or mixed (where
one premise is conditional and the other is not).
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise affirms the antecedent of
the conditional premise and the conclusion affirms its consequent.
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise affirms the
consequent, rather than the antecedent, of the conditional premise.
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise denies the consequent of
the conditional premise and the conclusion denies its antecedent.
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise denies the
antecedent, rather than the consequent, of the conditional premise.
A common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it is claimed that a choice
must be made between two (usually bad) alternatives.
In a simple dilemma, the conclusion is a single categorical proposition; in a complex
dilemma, the conclusion itself is a disjunction.
A statement that does not contain any other statement as a component.
A statement that contains another statement as a component.
A truth-functional connective meaning and, symbolized by the dot ().
The status of any statement as true or false.
Any component of a compound statement whose replacement by another statement
having the same truth value would not change the truth values of its component.
Any component of a compound statement whose truth-functions is wholly determined by
the truth values of its components.
Any logical connective (including conjunction, disjunction, material implication, and
material equivalence) between the components of a truth-functional compound
statement.
4
E.L.C. LEGAL TECHNIQUE

Negation Denial, symbolized by the tilde or curl (~).

Disjunction A truth-functional connective meaning or. It has a weak (inclusive) sense, symbolized
by the wedge () (or vee), and a strong (exclusive) sense.
Punctuation The parenthesis, brackets, and braces used in symbolic language to eliminate ambiguity in
meaning.
Conditional Statement A compound statement of the form If p then q.
Antecedent In a conditional statement, the component that immediately follows the if.
Consequent In a conditional statement, the component that immediately follows the then.
Implication The relation that holds between the antecedent and the consequent of a conditional
statement. There are different kinds of implication.
*logical, definitional, causal, decisional
Horseshoe () A symbol used to represent material implication, which is the common, partial meaning of
all if-then statements.
Material Implication A truth-functional relation, symbolized by the horseshoe () that may connect two
statements; the statement p materially implies q is true when either p is false or q is true.
Refutation by Logical Exhibiting the fault of an argument by presenting another argument with the same form
Analogy whose premises are known to be true and whose conclusion is known to be false.
Statement Variable A letter (lowercase) for which a statement may be substituted.
Argument Form An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an argument, it contains statement
variable, but no statements.
Substitution Instance of An Any argument that results from the consistent substitution of statements for statement
Argument Form variables in an argument form.
Specific Form of An The argument form from which the given argument results when a statement is
Argument Form substituted for each different statement variable.
Invalid Argument Form An argument form that has at least one substitution instance with true premises and a
false conclusion.
Valid Argument Form An argument form that has no substitution instances with true premises and a false
conclusion.
Truth Table An array on which the validity of an argument form may be tested, through the display of
all possible combinations of the truth values of the statement variables contained in that
form.
Disjunctive Syllogism A valid argument form in which one premise is a disjunction, another premise is the
denial of one of the disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the other disjunct.
Modus Ponens A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and in which another premise
affirms the antecedent of that conditional, and the conclusion affirms the consequent.
Modus Tollens A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and in which another premise
denies the consequent of that conditional, and the conclusion denies its antecedent.
Hypothetical Syllogism A valid argument containing only conditional propositions.
Fallacy of Affirming the A formal fallacy in which the second premise of an argument affirms the consequent of a
Consequent conditional premise and the conclusion of its argument affirms its antecedent.
Fallacy of Denying the A formal fallacy in which the second premise of an argument denies the antecedent of a
Antecedent conditional premise and the conclusion of the argument denies its consequent.
Statement Form An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of a statement; it contains statement
variables but no statement.
Substitution Instance of a Any statement that results from the consistent substitution of statements for statement
Statement Form variables in a statement form.

5
E.L.C. LEGAL TECHNIQUE

Specific Form of a Statement The statement form in which the given statement results when a different simple
statement is substituted consistently for each different statement variable.
Tautologous Statement Form A statement form that has only true substitution instances, a tautology.
Self-Contradictory Statement A statement form that has only false substitution instances, a contradiction.
Form
Contingent Statement Form A statement that has both true and false substitution instances.
Pierces Law A tautological statement of the form [(p q) p] p.
Materially Equivalent A truth-functional relation asserting that two statements connected by the three-bar sign
() have the same truth value.
Biconditional Statement A compound statement that asserts that its two component statements imply one another
and therefore are materially equivalent.
Logically Equivalent Two statements for which the statement of their material equivalence is a tautology; they
are equivalent in meaning and may replace one another.
Double Negation An expression of logical equivalence between as symbol and the negation of that symbol.
De Morgans Theorem Two useful logical equivalences: (1) the negation of the disjunction of two statements is
logically equivalent to the conjunction of the negations of the two disjuncts*; and (2) the
negation of the conjunction of two statements is logically equivalent to the disjunction of
the negations of the two conjuncts**.
*~(p q) (~p ~q)
**~(p q) (~p ~q)
Principle of Identity If any statement is true, it is true.
Principle of Noncontradiction No statement can both be true and false.
Principle of Excluded Middle Every statement is either true or false.

TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

Both can be false.
Cannot both be true.

All S is P. A contraries E No S is P.
Distribution: S only Distribution: S and P
S P S P
subalternation
subalternation

contradictories

Some S is P. I subcontraries O Some S is not P.

Distribution: none Distribution: P only
Both can be true.
S P S P
Cannot both be false.
x x

6
E.L.C. LEGAL TECHNIQUE

CONVERSION

Convertend Converse
A: All S is P. I: Some S is P. (by limitation)
E: No S is P. E: No P is S.
I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S.
O: Some S is not P. (invalid)

OBVERSION

Obvertend Obverse
A: All S is P. E: No S is non-P.
E: No S is P. A: All S is non-P.
I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P.
O: Some S is not P. I: Some S is non-P.
CONTRAPOSITION

Premise Contrapositive
A: All S is P. A: All non-P is non-S.
E: No S is P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. (by limitation)
I: Some S is P. (invalid)
O: Some S is not P. O: Some non-P is not non-S.

SYLLOGISTIC RULES AND FALLACIES

1. Avoid four terms. (Four terms)

2. Distribute the middle term in at least one premise. (Undistributed middle)
3. Any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises. (Illicit major/Illicit minor)
4. Avoid two negative premises. (Exclusive premises)
5. If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. (Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise)
6. From two universal premises, no particular conclusion may be drawn. (Existential fallacy)

15 VALID FORMS OF THE SATNDARD-FORM CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

1. AAA-1 Barbara 6. EAE-2 Cesare 11. EIO-3 Ferison

2. EAE-1 Celarent 7. AOO-2 Baroko 12. OAO-3 Bokardo
3. AII-1 Darii 8. EIO-2 Festino 13. AEE-4 Camenes
4. EIO-1 Ferio 9. AII-3 Datisi 14. IAI-4 Dimaris
5. AEE-2 Camestres 10. IAI-3 Disamis 15. EIO-4 Fresison

FIGURE

1 2 3 4

MP PM MP PM
SM SM MS MS
SP SP SP SP

7
E.L.C. LEGAL TECHNIQUE

TOOLS FOR TRANSLATING SENTENCES TO STANDARD-FORM

1. Reducing the number of terms

a. Eliminate synonyms
b. Eliminate class complements
2. Singular propositions
a. s is P All S is P or Some S is P
b. s is not P No S is P or Some S is not P
3. Adjectives class of all adjectives
4. Verb is not to be class defining characteristic
5. Not arranged ingredients determine the subject and then rearrange to a standard-form
6. every, any, everyone, anyone, whoever, whosoever, who, one who all
a, an, the depends on context if universal or particular
not every O proposition
not any E proposition
7. Exclusive propositions: only, none but A proposition (reverse the subject and predicate and replace only with
all)
8. No quantifier depends on context
9. Exceptive propositions: allbut, almost all, not quite all, all but a few, almost everyone compound
categorical proposition (conjunctions)
10. Uniform translation apply parameters (times, places, cases)
11. Enthymeme supply the suppressed premise
12. Sorites construct a chain of categorical syllogism

PRINCIPAL KINDS OF SYLLOGISM

1. Categorical If P is true, then Q is true.

If Q is true, then R is true.
Example: Therefore, if P is true, then R is true. valid
All M is P.
All S is M. b. Mixed
Therefore, all S is P.
Modus Ponens (Fallacy of affirming the consequent)
2. Disjunctive
Example:
Example: If P is true, then Q is true.
Either P is true or Q is true. P is true.
P is not true. Therefore, Q is true. valid
Therefore, Q is true. valid
Modus Tollens (Fallacy of denying the antecedent)
3. Hypothetical
Example:
a. Pure If P is true, the Q is true.
Q is false.
Example: Therefore, P is false. valid

8
E.L.C. LEGAL TECHNIQUE

TRUTH TABLES

1. NEGATION

p ~p
T F
F T

2. CONJUNCTION (and, but, yet, also, still, although, however, moreover, nevertheless, comma, semicolon, etc)

p q pq
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

3. DISJUNCTION (or, unless)

p q pq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

4. MATERIAL IMPLICATION* (ifthen, in case, provided that, given that, on the condition that)

p q pq
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

* p q = ~(p ~q)

5. MATERIAL EQUIVALENCE (if and only if)

p q pq
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F