Submitted by: Raychelle Pacheco

Subject: Evidence
Professor: Atty. Parungo

Critique about Inference

In rules of evidence, inference, as legally defined, is a truth or proposition drawn from another
that is supposed or admitted to be true. It is a process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought
to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved
or admitted. Through inference, a logical and reasonable conclusion of a fact is not presented by direct
evidence but by process of logic and reason, a trier of fact may conclude from the established facts.
Inferences are deductions or conclusions that with reason and common sense lead the jury to draw from
facts which have been established by the evidence in the case.

Inference, in law, is essential since law has no single technique for connecting its conclusions with
supporting data. The use of inference addresses conflicting opinions inherent in the legal system. In fact,
the use of inference influences the conception of presumptions acknowledged by law and the Rules of
Court.

In practical sense, inference is essential to, and part of, being human. As human being, we have
the capacity to for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and
changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is
considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature, and it is associated with a wide range of
fields, from science to philosophy. We engage in inference most of the time and interpret actions to
discover someones behavior, characteristics, intents, or expressions of particular feelings.

Inferences are not achieved with mathematical rigor nor by deductive reasoning alone. Inferences
tend to reflect prior knowledge and experience as well as personal beliefs and assumptions. Inferences
thus tend to reflect one's stake in a situation or one's interests in the outcome. People may reason
differently or bring different assumptions or premises to bear. Nonetheless, inferences are not
unsystematic. It is, in fact, very orderly, educated guesses based on supporting evidence. Both in law and
practical sense, we often face sense of inevitability to give conclusions, albeit, we ought not to jump to
baseless conclusion or make it up on our own, but to conclude by reasoning based from the evidence. In
that sense, a norm is created to reach the same conclusion on substantially similar set of facts.

Disagreements and conflicts in inferences are based not on differences in reasoning, but in the
values, assumptions, or information brought to bear. The more evidence brought forward coupled with
logical reasoning, the more valid the inferences.

There are 2 basic kinds of inference. The inductive and the deductive. Under deduction, it can be
classified as either immediate inference which includes Oppositional Inference, Eduction, Possibility and
Actuality, or Mediate Inference which includes Categorical Syllogism and Hypothetical Syllogism. Other
sub-classifications are formulated and can be used to form an inference which will be the ingredient of
ones argument.

With these kinds of inference, standards are adopted to evaluate the reliability of inferences, the
patterns of reasoning that lead from premises to conclusion in a logical argument. Thus, it is possible to
distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive
matters.