Leg Tech Final Output

University of the Cordilleras
College of Law
Legal Logic and Technique
Professor:
Atty. Nestor Mondok
Reporters:
GROUP 1
Bonnie Macay
-Recognizing Arguments
- Arguments and Explanations
-Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
-Validity and Truth
Ricky James Rosalejos
-Paraphrasing Arguments
-Diagramming Arguments
-Complex Argumentative
-Problems in Reasoning
January 31, 2019
Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 1 of

30
College of Law
Course Title: Legal Technique and Logic

Professor: Atty. Nestor Mondok
Reporters: Bonnie Macay (Group 1)
Scope/Topics: -Recognizing Arguments

- Arguments and Explanations
-Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
-Validity and Truth
Credit: 2 units
Topic Description: This lesson discusses the methods in recognizing arguments, and
some of the difficulties confronted in that process. As well as,
assessment of validity and truth value, proper usage of deductive
and inductive reasoning and distinguishing arguments from
explanations.
Learning Outcomes: At the end of the lesson, the learner is expected to be able to do the
following:
1. Recognize arguments from other statements, to explain the

proper usage of indicators, to distinguish expressed and implied
inference and to properly use them in creating logically sound
assertions.
2. Explain the characteristics of explanation that differentiates it
from arguments and describe the tools to decipher the intent of
the language used.
3. Discuss deductive and inductive reasoning and provide
examples that illustrate the proper usage of both reasoning.
4. Discuss the concept of validity and truth, and relations between
true (or false) propositions and valid (or invalid) arguments.
On completion of the topics, the learner is also expected to be able to

do the following:
SLO1. Relate the implications of each lesson in their career as
future lawyers.
SLO2. Relate the importance of the lessons in their chosen
profession.
SLO3. Apply the argumentation knowledge and ideas to their
personal lives.
Other policy: Students are encouraged to share reference materials with his section mates
and other sections as long as the degree of assistance is properly
acknowledged.

30
Master Schedule:
Date Topic Learning Objective Reference
 Recognize arguments
from other statements,
Recognizing to explain the proper  Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon,
Arguments usage of indicators, to K. (2014). Introduction to logic.
distinguish expressed Routledge. pp 36-40
and implied inference
and to properly use  http://commonsenseatheism.com
them in creating /?p=2067
logically sound
assertions.
 Explain the
characteristics of
explanation that  Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon,
K. (2014). Introduction to logic.
Arguments and differentiates it from
Routledge. pp 40-50
Explanations arguments and
 http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/Se
describe the tools to
ction1.2.htm
decipher the intent of
31 the language used.
January
2019
 Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon,
K. (2014). Introduction to logic.
 Discuss deductive and Routledge. pp 51-56
inductive reasoning
Deductive and and provide examples  https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/
Inductive that illustrate the arg/complex.php
Reasoning proper usage of both
reasoning.  https://prezi.com/sqqxhgtdpywe
/recognizing-arguments/
 Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon,

 Discuss the concept of K. (2014). Introduction to logic.
validity and truth, and Routledge. pp 56-64
define the relations
Validity and Truth between true (or false)  https://philosophy.lander.edu/log
propositions and valid ic/nonarg.html
(or invalid) arguments.
Reference:
Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to logic. Routledge. pp 11-36.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2067
http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/Section1.2.htm
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nonarg.html
https://prezi.com/sqqxhgtdpywe/recognizing-arguments/

30
Date: 31 January 2019 Lesson No. 01
Lesson Title:
ARGUMENTS
I. Recognizing Arguments
Abstract: Several kinds of non-argumentative discourse are characterized, illustrated, and
distinguished from argumentative discourse
Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something: At least
one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons; and 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.
To be an argument, then, a passage must contain both a factual claim and an inferential
claim. The factual claim is expressed in the premises, and the inferential claim is the claim that
these sentences support or imply something further. The implication may be implicit or explicit.
In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence presented supports or implies something; look
for 1) premise and conclusion indicator words and 2) the presence of an inferential relationship
between the statements. Note, though, that the mere presence of an indicator word is not a
guarantee that it’s an argument. (Hurley, Section 1.2, taken from
http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/Section1.2.htm on January 26, 2019)
Given these characterizations, then, how do we sort out arguments from the rest of the
kinds of linguistic behavior? In effect, what we are doing is separating the territory of logic from
the rest of the world. In order to know to what we can apply our powerful methods of analysis,
we need to learn how to separate argumentative discourse from non-argumentative discourse.
(taken from https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nonarg.html on January 27 2019).
Most factual claims fall outside the domain of logic. So in this class, we’ll be focusing in
inferential claims. Inferential claims are either explicit or implicit. (taken from
https://prezi.com/sqqxhgtdpywe/recognizing-arguments/ on January 28, 2019)
A. Conclusion Indicators and Premise Indicators (Explicit Inference)
One useful method depends on the appearance of certain common indicators,

certain words or phrases that typically serve to signal the appearance of an argument’s
conclusion or of its premises. Here is a partial list of conclusion indicators:

30
Other words or phrases typically serve to mark the premises of an argument and
hence are called premise indicators. Usually, but not always, what follows any one of
these will be the premise of some argument. Here is a partial list of premise indicators:
B. Arguments in Context (Implicit Inference)
The full force of argument and counterargument can be grasped, in most

circumstances, only with an understanding of the context in which those arguments are
presented. In real life, context is critical. For example, if you are told that I am bringing a
lobster home for dinner, you will have little doubt that I intend to eat it, not feed it.
No premise indicators or conclusion indicators are used here, yet the argument is
clear. Indicators are absent in the following argument in Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian
Nation, whose premises and conclusions are unmistakable:
Often, however, the force of an argument can be appreciated only when one
understands the context in which that argument is presented. For example, the
undergraduate admission system of the University of Michigan that gave a fixed number
of extra points to all members of certain minority groups was held unconstitutional by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Gratz v. Bollinger in 2003. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
dissented, defending the Michigan system with the following argument:

30
C. Premises or Conclusions Not in Declarative Form
On the surface they make no assertions; beneath the surface an interrogative

sentence can serve as a premise when its question is rhetorical—that is, when it suggests
or assumes an answer that is made to serve as the premise of an argument. The sentence
may be interrogative even though its meaning is declarative. This use of questions is
sometimes obvious, as in a letter dated 7 January2007 to The New York Times, objecting
to a new series of U.S. coins that will honor former presidential wives. Irit R. Rasooly
wrote:
D. Unstated Propositions
Arguments are sometimes obscure because one (or more) of their

constituent propositions is not stated but is assumed to be understood.
II. Arguments and Explanations

While an argument contains premises and a conclusion, explanations consist of an
explanan and an explanandum. The former is the group of statements that are doing the
explaining, and the latter is what is explained. (taken from
http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/Section1.2.htm on January 27, 2019)
How to distinguish arguments from explanations? (taken from

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nonarg.html on January 27, 2019)
1. By carefully reading the text, you can discern several important differences
between an argument and an explanation.
a. Do a group of statements give evidence, grounds, or reasons for some other

statement?
b. Is the purported conclusion better known than the purported premisses?
c. Is a causal connection asserted or implied?
d. What is the author's purpose in offering the passage?
e. What is the context of the passage?

30
2. In general, these questions point to the difference between arguments and
explanations. (Nevertheless, as shown below, arguments and explanations do, on
occasion, overlap.)
3. Consider the following passage given in an edition of Copi's Introduction to Logic:
(1) The Roman Empire collapsed because (2) it lacked the spirit of liberalism and free
enterprise.
a. Which statement is better known (1) or (2)? Since the first statement is better
known, we would normally conclude that this is an explanation which shows a causal
connection rather than an argument with a logical implication. However, Copi has taken
this passage out of context as we will see below.
b. If the author were advancing the general thesis "All countries that lack these
attributes crumble to dust," therefore the Roman Empire did, then a Deductive
Nomological Explanation is being given. In point of fact, this is precisely the argument
which von Mises gives in the original passage from which this passage was excerpted:
"The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of liberalism and free
enterprise. The policy of interventionism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle,
decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy any
social entity."
(Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Auburn: Mises, 1949), 763.)
[All countries that lack the spirit of liberalism and free enterprise crumble to dust.] I.e.,
contraposition of the last sentence of the passage above.
The Roman Empire lacked the spirit of liberalism and free enterprise.
Therefore, the Roman Empire crumbled to dust.

30
c. The complete passage then is an example of the Deductive Nomological Method of
Explanation, a method of ordering science as a deductive system of information.
4. Some passages are a mixture of argument and explanation. Consider this example:
"There was therefore a sound reason why, despite theological differences, the political
theories of Calvinists in France or Scotland should have had certain similarities with those of
the Jesuits. Both were in a situation where it was necessary to urge that political obligation
is not absolute and that a right of rebellion exits against an heretical ruler. Both depended
upon a common heritage of medieval thought and argued that the community itself creates
is own officials and can regulate them for its own purposes. Both held, therefore, that
political power inheres in the people, is derived from him by contract, and may be revoked if
the king becomes a tyrant."
(George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, 3rd. ed. (London: Haarp, 1963), 388.)
The second and third statements are reasons for the conclusion expressed in the third
statement. The third statement is the explanans (that which is the explanation) for the first
statement which is the explanandum (that which is to be explained)..
Note: Explanations often are given for well-known states of affairs. In science, the
explanation is almost always less well known than that which is to be explained.
For example, the answer as to why rainbows form on gasoline-station driveways is expressed
in terms of layers of different densities of fluids with different optical properties. The index
of refraction, reflection, wavelengths of light, and the electromagnetic spectrum are all
mentioned in the explanans.
Hence, unlike arguments, the statements in an explanation generally "move" from well-
known to less well known statements.
III. Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Every argument makes the claim that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its
conclusion; that claim is the mark of an argument. However, there are two very different
ways in which a conclusion may be supported by its premises, and thus there are two great
classes of arguments: the deductive and the inductive. Understanding this distinction is
essential in the study of logic. A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is
supported by its premises conclusively. An inductive argument, in contrast, does not make
such a claim. Therefore, if we judge that in some passage a claim for conclusiveness is being
made, we treat the argument as deductive; if we judge that such a claim is not being made,

30
we treat it as inductive. Because every argument either makes this claim of conclusiveness
(explicitly or implicitly) or does not make it, every argument is either deductive or inductive.
In contrast, the central task of inductive arguments is to ascertain the facts by which
conduct may be guided directly, or on which other arguments may be built. Empirical
investigations are undertaken—as in medicine, or social science, or astronomy—leading,
when inductive techniques are applied appropriately, to factual conclusions, most often
concerning cause-and-effect relationships of some importance
In sum, the distinction between induction and deduction rests on the nature of the claims
made by the two types of arguments about the relations between their premises and their
conclusions. Thus we characterize the two types of arguments as follows: A deductive
argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute
necessity, this necessity not being a matter of degree and not depending in any way on
whatever else may be the case. In sharp contrast, an inductive argument is one whose
conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability, this probability being
a matter of degree and dependent on what else may be the case.
IV. Validity and Truth

A deductive argument is valid when it succeeds in linking, with logical necessity, the
conclusion to its premises. Its validity refers to the relation between its propositions—
between the set of propositions that serve as the premises and the one proposition that
serves as the conclusion of that argument. If the conclusion follows with logical necessity
from the premises, we say that the argument is valid. Therefore validity can never apply to
any single proposition by itself, because the needed relation cannot possibly be found within
any one proposition. Truth and falsehood, on the other hand, are attributes of individual
propositions. A single statement that serves as a premise in an argument may be true; the
statement that serves as its conclusion may be false. This conclusion might have been validly
inferred, but to say that any conclusion (or any single premise) is itself valid or invalid makes
no sense.
Truth is the attribute of those propositions that assert what really is the case. When I
assert that Lake Superior is the largest of the five Great Lakes, I assert what really is the case,
what is true. If I had claimed that Lake Michigan is the largest of the Great Lakes my assertion
would not be in accord with the real world; therefore it would be false. This contrast between
validity and truth is important: Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or
statements; validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments. Just as the concept of validity
cannot apply to single propositions, the concept of truth cannot apply to arguments. Of the
several propositions in an argument, some (or all) may be true and some (or all) may be false.

30
However, the argument as a whole is neither true nor false. Propositions, which are
statements about the world, may be true or false; deductive arguments, which consist of
inferences from one set of propositions to other propositions, may be valid or invalid.
The relations between true (or false) propositions and valid (or invalid) arguments are
critical and complicated. Those relations lie at the heart of deductive logic. It devoted largely
to the examination of those complex relations, but a preliminary discussion of the relation
between validity and truth is in order here. We begin by emphasizing that an argument may
be valid even if one or more of its premises is not true. Every argument makes a claim about
the relation between its premises and the conclusion drawn from them; that relation may
hold even if the premises turn out to be false or the truth of the premises is in dispute.
There are many possible combinations of true and false premises and conclusions in both
valid and invalid arguments. Here follow seven illustrative arguments, each prefaced by the
statement of the combination (of truth and validity) that it represents. With these
illustrations (whose content is deliberately trivial) before us, we will be in a position to
formulate some important principles concerning the relations between truth and validity.
I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions—true premises and a true
conclusion:
All mammals have lungs.
All whales are mammals.
Therefore all whales have lungs.
II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions—false premises and a false
conclusion:
All four-legged creatures have wings.
All spiders have exactly four legs.
Therefore all spiders have wings.
This argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be
true also—even though we know that in fact both the premises and the conclusion of this
argument are false.
III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions—all their premises are true,
and their conclusions are true as well:
If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be wealthy.
I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.

30
Therefore I am not wealthy.
The true conclusion of this argument does not follow from its true premises. This will be
seen more clearly when the immediately following illustration is considered.
IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion. This
is illustrated by an argument exactly like the previous one (III) in form, changed only enough
to make the conclusion false.
If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then Bill Gates would be wealthy.
Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Therefore Bill Gates is not wealthy.
Basic Logical Concepts
The premises of this argument are true, but its conclusion is false.
Such an argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid
argument to be true and its conclusion to be false.
V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion:
All fishes are mammals.
All whales are fishes.
Therefore all whales are mammals.
The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; moreover, it may be validly inferred
from these two premises, both of which are wildly false.
VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion:
All mammals have wings.
All whales have wings.
Therefore all whales are mammals.
From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that we cannot tell from the fact that
an argument has false premises and a true conclusion whether it is valid or invalid.
VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions—false premises and
a false conclusion:
All mammals have wings.

30
All whales have wings.
Therefore all mammals are whales.
These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with false conclusions
(Example II), as well as invalid arguments with true conclusions (Examples III and VI). Hence
it is clear that the truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion does not by itself determine
the validity or invalidity of that argument. Moreover, the fact that an argument is valid does
not guarantee the truth of its conclusion (Example II)
References
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2067
http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/Section1.2.htm
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nonarg.html
https://prezi.com/sqqxhgtdpywe/recognizing-arguments/

College of Law

30
Course Title: Legal Technique and Logic
Professor: Atty. Nestor Mondok
Reporters: Ricky James Rosalejos (Group 1)
Scope/Topics: -Paraphrasing Arguments

-Diagramming Arguments
-Complex Argumentative
-Problems in Reasoning
Credit: 2 units
Topic Description: This lesson discusses the techniques for the analysis of arguments, and
some of the difficulties confronted in that process.
The most common, and perhaps the most useful technique for analysis is
paraphrase. We paraphrase an argument by setting forth its propositions in
clear language and in logical order. This may require the reformulation of
sentences, and therefore great care must be taken to ensure that the
paraphrase put forward captures correctly and completely the argument
that was to be analyzed.
A second technique for the analysis of arguments is diagramming. A

diagram is not needed for a simple argument, even though drawing one
can enhance our understanding. When an argument is complex, with many
premises entwined in various ways, a diagram can be exceedingly helpful.
In complex argumentative passages, some arguments are exceedingly

complicated. Analyzing passages in which several arguments are
interwoven, with some propositions serving as both premises and sub-
conclusions while other propositions serve only as premises, and still
others are repeated in different words.
And lastly, in reasoning we advance from premises known (or affirmed for
the purpose) to conclusions.
Learning Outcomes: At the end of the lesson, the learner is expected to be able to do the
following:
1. Explain the paraphrasing of an argumentative passage, in which the

essential propositions may be reworded (or supplied if they are assumed but
missing), and in which premises and conclusions are put into the most
intelligible order.
2. Explain the diagramming of an argument, in which the propositions of an
argument are represented by numbers, and the relations of the premises and
conclusions are then exhibited graphically in two dimensions, by showing on a
page the relations of those numbered propositions.
3. Discuss complex argumentative passages, in which the conclusions of
sub-arguments may serve as premises for further arguments, and whose
complete analysis generally requires an intricate diagram or an extensive
paraphrase.
4. Discuss contrived problems of reasoning, which often mirror the
complexities confronted by many different kinds of investigation in real life, and
whose solutions require the construction of extended sets of arguments and sub-
arguments.

30
On completion of the topics, the learner is also expected to be able to
do the following:
SLO1. Relate the implications of each lesson in their career as
future lawyers.
SLO2. Relate the importance of the lessons in their chosen
profession.
SLO3. Apply the argumentation knowledge and ideas to their
personal lives.
Other policy: Students are encouraged to share reference materials with his section mates
and other sections as long as the degree of assistance is properly
acknowledged.
Master Schedule:
Date Topic Learning Objective Reference
Paraphrasing  Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., &
 Explain the paraphrasing of an McMahon, K.
Arguments (2014). Introduction to
argumentative passage, in which the
logic. Routledge. pp 36-
essential propositions may be reworded
40
(or supplied if they are assumed but
missing), and in which premises and
 https://academicguides.w
conclusions are put into the most aldenu.edu/formandstyle/
intelligible order. writing/arguments/paraph
rasing
 Explain the diagramming of an
argument, in which the propositions of Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., &
an argument are represented by McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction
Diagramming numbers, and the relations of the to logic. Routledge. pp 40-50
Arguments premises and conclusions are then
exhibited graphically in two dimensions,  https://philosophy.lander.
by showing on a page the relations of edu/logic/diagram.html
those numbered propositions.
 Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., &
31 McMahon, K.
January (2014). Introduction to
 Discuss complex argumentative
2019 logic. Routledge. pp 51-
passages, in which the conclusions of
56
Complex sub-arguments may serve as premises for
Argumentative further arguments, and whose complete
 https://philosophy.hku.hk/
analysis generally requires an intricate think/arg/complex.php
diagram or an extensive paraphrase.
 Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., &

McMahon, K.
(2014). Introduction to
 Discuss contrived problems of
logic. Routledge. pp 56-
reasoning, which often mirror the
64
Problems in complexities confronted by many
Reasoning different kinds of investigation in real
 https://www.assessmentda
life, and whose solutions require the
y.co.uk/aptitudetests_logic
construction of extended sets of al.htm
arguments and sub-arguments.
Reference:

30
Lesson Title:
ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
Course ILO Intended Learning Objectives (ILO):

Code:
01, 02, 03, 04, At the end of the lesson, students will be able to:
SLO1, SLO2, - discusses the techniques for the analysis of arguments, and some of the
SLO3 difficulties confronted in that process.
Instructional Methodology/ies:
 Socratic Method
Lesson Content:
Description of the Lesson:
This lesson discusses the techniques for the analysis of arguments, and some of the difficulties confronted
in that process.
The most common, and perhaps the most useful technique for analysis is paraphrase. We paraphrase an
argument by setting forth its propositions in clear language and in logical order.
A second technique for the analysis of arguments is diagramming. A diagram is not needed for a simple
argument, even though drawing one can enhance our understanding.
In complex argumentative passages, some arguments are exceedingly complicated with some
propositions serving as both premises and sub-conclusions while other propositions serve only as
premises, and still others are repeated in different words.
And lastly, in reasoning we advance from premises known (or affirmed for the purpose) to conclusions.
Enduring Understanding:
• A successful paraphrase is your own explanation or interpretation of another person's ideas.
• Analyzing the structure of arguments is clarified by representing the logical relations in diagram
form.
• In order to analyze simple and complex arguments, we will find it useful to construct a diagram of
the structure of the argument that details the relations among the various premises and conclusions.
• When working with complex arguments, it is often helpful to reconstruct the argument backwards
from the conclusion.
• An (simple) argument is a set of one or more premise with a conclusion. A complex argument is a set
of arguments with either overlapping premises or conclusions (or both). Complex arguments are
very common because many issues and debates are complicated and involve extended reasoning. To
understand complex arguments, we need to analyze the logical structure of the reasoning involved.
Drawing a diagram can be very helpful.
• There are numerous types of logical reasoning test, and many of these are used interchangeably.
Motivation:

30
Provide an overview of the lesson/introduce the learning objectives.
Show the questions and let the students answer on their own. Then show its answer.
Ask the students how they understand the terms being shown. Then show the definition that shall be used
during the lecture.
Discuss the essence of the activities with respect to the lesson objective. Provide a fluid transition by
emphasizing the importance of understanding argumentation and its causes. Emphasize the need to grasp
concepts and how it is contextualized based on various viewpoints.
Main Content:
1. Essential Activity #1: Paraphrasing
Require the students to get a sheet of paper and answer the sample exercise shown. Ask a student to
go to the board and argue the points or merits of the discussion.
2. Essential Activity #2 and #3: Diagramming

In the same sheet of paper answer the sample exercise shown. Ask a student to go to the board and
argue the points or merits of the discussion.
3. Essential Question #4: Logical Reasoning
In the same sheet of paper answer the sample exercise shown. Ask a student to go to the board and
argue the points or merits of the discussion.
Lesson Summary:
In this chapter we have discussed techniques for the analysis of arguments, and some of the difficulties
confronted in that process.
In Section 1 we explained the paraphrasing of an argumentative passage, in which the essential

propositions may be reworded (or supplied if they are assumed but missing), and in which premises
and conclusions are put into the most intelligible order.
In Section 2 we explained the diagramming of an argument, in which the propositions of an argument

are represented by numbers, and the relations of the premises and conclusions are then exhibited
graphically in two dimensions, by showing on a page the relations of those numbered propositions.
In Section 3 we discussed complex argumentative passages, in which the conclusions of subarguments

may serve as premises for further arguments, and whose complete analysis generally requires an
intricate diagram or an extensive paraphrase.
In Section 4 we discussed contrived problems of reasoning, which often mirror the complexities
confronted by many different kinds of investigation in real life, and whose solutions require the
construction of extended sets of arguments and subarguments.
Instructional Procedure and Time Allotment:

1. Supervise the class prior to their entry to the classroom. (3 minutes)
2. Give the students one minute of silence to prepare for the lesson. (1 minute)
3. Introduce the lesson and its objectives. (5 minutes)
4. Facilitate the motivational activity and/or pre-assessment. (10 minutes)
5. Facilitate classroom discussion through the lesson’s instructional methodology. Make sure that the
class participates in the activity/exercises. (30 minutes)
6. Give lesson summary. (5 minutes)
7. Entertain clarification if there any. (5 minute)
8. Dismiss the class. (1 minute) 30
References and Resources:
Assignment:
 Practice the Exercises found in the book.
Instructor’s Notes and Remarks:

30
Lesson Title:
ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
Basics of Paraphrasing
A successful paraphrase is your own explanation or interpretation of another person's ideas.
Paraphrasing in academic writing is an effective way to restate, condense, or clarify another
author's ideas while also providing credibility to your own argument or analysis. While
successful paraphrasing is essential for strong academic writing, unsuccessful paraphrasing
can result in unintentional plagiarism. Look through the paraphrasing strategies below to
better understand what counts as an effective paraphrase.
Effective Paraphrasing Strategies

If you’re having trouble paraphrasing a text effectively, try following these steps:
1. Reread the original passage you wish to paraphrase, looking up any words you do not
recognize, until you think you understand the full meaning of and intention behind the
author's words.
2. Next, cover or hide the passage. Once the passage is hidden from view, write out the
author's idea, in your own words, as if you were explaining it to your instructor or
classmates.
3. After you have finished writing, check your account of the author's idea against the
original. While comparing the two, ask yourself the following questions:
Have I accurately addressed the author's ideas in a new way that is unique to my writing
style and scholarly voice?
Have I tried to replicate the author's idea or have I simply changed words around in
his/her original sentence(s)?
4. Last, include a citation, which should contain the author's name, the year, and the page
or paragraph number (if available), directly following your paraphrase.
Examples of Paraphrasing
Here is the original source an author might use in a paper:
Differentiation as an instructional approach promotes a balance between a student's style and
a student's ability. Differentiated instruction provides the student with options for processing
and internalizing the content, and for constructing new learning in order to progress
academically.
Here is an example of bad paraphrasing of the source. Even though the student is citing
correctly, underlined words are simply synonyms of words used in the original source. You can
also see how the sentence structure is the same for both the original source and this
paraphrase.
Differentiation is a way to encourage equality between the approach and talent of the
student (Thompson, 2009). This type of instruction gives students different ways to deal with
and grasp information, and for establishing new learning to move on in education (Thompson,
2009).
Here is an example of a better way to paraphrase the source. In this example, the author has
taken the essential ideas and information from the original source, but has worded it in her

30
own way, using unique word choice and sentence structure. The author has condensed
Thompson's (2009) information, including what is relevant to her paper, but leaving out extra
details that she does not needed.
Teachers use differentiated instruction to help students learn, allowing the teacher to cater
lessons to the way each student learns and each student's skill (Thompson, 2009).
Diagramming Arguments
Abstract: Analyzing the structure of arguments is clarified by representing the logical relations
in diagram form.
I. Arguments in logic are composed reasons being offered for a conclusion. (The use of
the term "argument" in logic does not carry the everyday connotation of a quarrel in
everyday discourse.
II. The presence of an argument in a passage is discovered by understanding the author's

intention of proving a statement by offering reasons or evidence. Generally speaking,
these reasons are presented as verbal reports although they might not be initially
presented in declarative sentences.
III. There are three main ways of judging the presence of an argument:
A. The author or writer explicitly states explicitly lists the reasons, evidence,
justification, rationale, or proof of a statement.
Example:
(1) I conclude the dinosaurs probably had to cope with cancer. These are my
reasons: (2) a beautiful bone found in Colorado filled with agate has a hole in its
center, (3) the outer layer was eroded all the way through, and (4) this
appearance closely matches metastatic bone tumors in humans.
B. The author uses argument indicators signifying the presence of an argument.

(Common premise and conclusion indicators are listed below in Section IV).
Example:
(1) Since the solution turned red when the indicator was added, (2) I conclude it
is acidic, inasmuch as acidic substances react with this indicator to form a red
color.
C. The passage under question implicitly provides an answer to the sometimes

irreverent question of "What are you trying to prove?" The presence of an
argument cannot be always known with certainty. A charitable, conventional
interpretation of the content and context of the passage is assumed.
Example:
(1) The types of sentences you use are quite varied. (2) I've noticed that your
essays are quite sophisticated. (3) You have been learning much more about
sentence structure.

30
[The conclusion is statement (3)].
IV. In order to analyze simple and complex arguments, we will find it useful to construct a
diagram of the structure of the argument that details the relations among the various
premises and conclusions.
A. A conclusion of one argument can become a premise for another argument.

Thus, a statement can be the conclusion of one argument and a premise for
another argument just as a daughter in one family can become a mother in
another family.
B. The number of arguments in a passage is conventionally established by the

number of conclusions in that passage.
C. In analyzing the structure of an argument, whether simple or complex, the all-

important first step is to find the conclusion. Here are some specific suggestions
as to how to find the conclusion.
1. The conclusion might be evident from the content and context of the
paragraph structure. The sequence of sentences is often an indication of
the conclusion. Arrangement of sentences from most general to specific
is a common form of paragraph or passage; the arrangement of sentences
from specific to general is a bit less common. Considering both cases, the
conclusion is often the first and sometimes the last sentence in a passage.
Example:
(1) John didn't get much sleep last night. (2) He has dark circles under his
eyes. (3) He looks tired.
The conclusion is the first sentence in the passage.
2. Nevertheless, the conclusion can occur anywhere in the paragraph,

especially if the passage has not been revised for clarity. Usually, if a
conclusion is not the first or last sentence, a conclusion indicator is
present, or the last sentence is presented as an after thought with a
premise indicator. See below for lists of premises and conclusion
indicators.
Example:
(1) Studies from rats indicate that neuropeptide Y in the brain causes
carbohydrate craving, and (2) galanin causes fat craving. (3) Hence, I

30
conclude that food cravings are tied to brain chemicals (4) because
neuropeptide Y and galanin are brain chemicals.
3. The structure of the argument (and, of course, the conclusion, as well)

might be inferred by the following kinds of indicators.
a. Premise indicators are words which often indicate the presence

of reasons. Common premise indicators include the following:
for
since
as
because
for the reason
follows from
after all
in light of the fact
*for the reason
Example Argument:
(1)The graphical method for solving a system of equations is an

approximation, (2) since reading the point of intersection
depends on the accuracy with which the lines are drawn and on
the ability to interpret the coordinates of the point.
b. Another example argument:
(1) Questionable research practices are far more common than

previously believed, (2) after all, the Acadia Institute found that
44 percent of students and 50 percent of faculty from universities
were aware of cases of plagiarism, falsifying data, or racial
discrimination.

30
c. Conclusion indicators are words which often indicate the
statement which logically follows from the reasons given.
Common conclusion indicators include the following:
thus
therefore
consequently
hence
so
it follows that
proves that
indicates that
*accordingly
implies that
*for this reason
Examples of their use in arguments:
(1) No one has directly observed a chemical bond, (2) so scientists

who try to envision such bonds must rely on experimental clues
and their own imaginations.
(1) Math grades for teens with bipolar disorder usually drop
noticeably about one year before their condition is
diagnosed, thus(2) probably bipolar disorder involves a
deterioration of mathematical reasoning.
(1) Coal seams have been discovered in Antarctica. (2) This

means that the climate there was once warmer than it is now.
(3) Thus, either the geographical location of the continent has

30
shifted or the whole Earth was once warmer than it is now.
d. Conjunctives (including conjunctive adverbs) often indicate

equal status for clauses or sentences. Noticing these conjuncts is
especially helpful for argument analysis if one of the elements has
already been identified.
Indicators of clauses of equal status include:
and
but
yet
however
moreover
in addition
nevertheless
(and also the semicolon ";")
Examples:
(1) Some students absent today are unprepared for this test, since
(2) the law of averages dictates that only 10% of students are
absent due to illness, and (3) more than 10% are absent.
(1) Lenses function by refracting light at their surfaces. (2)

Consequently, not only does their action depends on the shape of
the lens surfaces but also (3) it depends on the indices of
refraction of the lens material and the surrounding medium.
V. When working with complex arguments, it is often helpful to reconstruct the argument
backwards from the conclusion. Consider the following argument.

30
(1) If students were environmentally aware, they would object to the endangering of
any species of animal. (2) The well-known Greenwood white squirrel has become
endangered (3)as it has disappeared from the Lander Campus (4) because the building
of the library destroyed its native habitat. (5) No Lander students objected. (6) Thus,
Lander students are not environmentally aware.
o The premise indicators suggest that (2) is a subconclusion of (3) since the
indicator "as" connects them, and (3), in turn, is a subconclusion of (4) since the
indicator "because" connects those two statements.
o Statement (6) is the final conclusion since it has the conclusion indicator "thus"
and the import of the paragraph indicates that this statement is the main point
of the argument.
o Intuitively, the structure of the first statement (1) together with statement (5) is
a common argument form:
If students were environmentally Aware, they would Object to the endangering

of any species of animal.
No student Objected (to the endangering of the Greenwood white squirrel).
which can be abbreviated as follows:
If A then O
Not O
and the negation of clause O is logically equivalent to conclusion (6).

(Later in the course we will see that this argument structure is termed modus
tollens):
If A then O
Not O
_____________
Not A which is the same statement as (6).

30
Hence the whole argument can now be pieced together as:
Argument mapping
An (simple) argument is a set of one or more premise with a conclusion. A complex argument is
a set of arguments with either overlapping premises or conclusions (or both). Complex
arguments are very common because many issues and debates are complicated and involve
extended reasoning. To understand complex arguments, we need to analyze the logical
structure of the reasoning involved. Drawing a diagram can be very helpful.
§1. Argument maps

An argument map is a diagram that captures the logical structure of a simple or complex
argument. In the simplest possible case, we have a single premise supporting a single
conclusion. Consider this argument :
Death is inevitable. So life is meaningless.
This can be represented in an argument map as follows:
We can also use numbers to label the premises and conclusion. (1) = Life is meaningless, (2) =
Death is inevitable:
Let us now look at another example:
(1) Paris is in France, and (2) France is in Europe. So obviously (3) Paris is in Europe.
Here is the corresponding argument map:

30
Note that the two premises are connected together before linking to the conclusion. This
merging of the links indicate that the two premises are co-premises which work together in a
single argument to support the conclusion. In other words, they do not provide independent
reasons for accepting the conclusion. Without one of the premises, the other premise would fail
to support the conclusion.
This should be contrasted with the following example where the premises are not co-premises.
They provide independent reasons for supporting the conclusion:
[1] Smoking is unhealthy, since [2] it can cause cancer. Furthermore, [3] it also increases the
chance of heart attacks and strokes.
Instead of writing the premises and the conclusion in full in the argument map, we can label
them and write down their numbers instead:
This diagram tells us that [2] and [3] are independent reasons supporting [1]. In other words,
without [2], [3] would still support [1], and without [3], [2] would still support [1]. (Although
the argument is stronger with both premises.)
Finally, it is also possible to have a single reason giving rise to multiple conclusions :
[1] Gold is a metal. [2] So it conducts electricity. [3] It also conducts heat.
§2. More complicated examples

Now that we know the basics of argument maps, we can combine the templates we learn above
to represent more complicated arguments, by following this procedure:
1. Identify the most important or main conclusion(s) of the argument.

2. Identify the premises used to support the conclusion(s). These are the premises of the
main argument.
3. If additional arguments have been given to support any of these premises, identify the
premises of these additional arguments as well, and repeat this procedure.
4. Label the premises and conclusions using numerals or letters.

30
5. Write down the labels in a tree structure and draw arrows leading from sets of
premises to the conclusions they support.
Let us try this out on this argument:
Po cannot come to the party because her scooter is broken. Dipsy also cannot come because
he has to pick up his new hat. I did not invite the other teletubbies, so no teletubby will
come up to the party.
We now label and reformulate the premises and the conclusions:
1. Po cannot come to the party.

2. Po's scooter is broken.
3. Dipsy cannot come to the party.
4. Dipsy has to pick up his new hat.
5. I did not invite the other teletubbies.
6. [Conclusion] No teletubby will come up to the party.
We can then draw the argument map like this:
This is an example of what we might call a multi-layered complex argument, where an

intermediate conclusion is used as a premise in another argument. So [1] and [3] are the
intermediate conclusions, which together with [5] lead to the main conclusion [6]. This
complex argument is therefore made up of three overlapping simple arguments in total. Of
course, in this particular case you can understand the argument perfectly well without using
this diagram. But with more complicated arguments, a picture can be an indispensable aid.
Exercise #1
 Draw argument maps for the following arguments: (For answer refer to
https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php)
1. [1] This computer can think. So [2] it is conscious. Since [3] we should not kill any
conscious beings, [4] we should not switch it off.
2. [1. Many people think that having a dark tan is attractive.] [2. But the fact is that too
much exposure to the sun is very unhealthy.] [3. It has been shown that sunlight can
cause premature aging of the skin.] [4. Ultraviolent rays in the sun might also trigger off
skin cancer.]
3. [1. If Lala is here, then Po should be here as well.] [2. It follows that if Po is not here,
Lala is also absent,] and indeed [3. Po is not here.] So most likely [4. Lala is not around.]
4. [1. Marriage is becoming unfashionable.] [2. Divorce rate is at an all time high], and [3.
cohabitation is increasingly presented in a positive manner in the media]. [4. Movies are
full of characters who live together and unwilling to commit to a lifelong partnership].
[5. Even newspaper columnists recommend people to live together for an extended
period before marriage in order to test their compatibility.]

30
5. [1. All university students should study critical thinking.] After all, [2. critical thinking is
necessary for surviving in the new economy] as [3. we need to adapt to rapid changes,
and make critical use of information in making decisions.] Also, [4. critical thinking can
help us reflect on our values and purposes in life.] Finally, [5. critical thinking helps us
improve our study skills.]
Different types of logical reasoning
There are numerous types of logical reasoning test, and many of these are used
interchangeably. These tests tend to be similar in their layout and methodology, but with
subtle and important differences. A list of common logical reasoning tests is as follows:
Inductive reasoning:
Inductive reasoning is the ability to reach general conclusion based on perceived patterns
observed in specific events. Inductive logic is often used in everyday life and is therefore
practical to a work place environment. In these tests candidates will be provided with a
series of diagrams with an evident pattern. Candidates will need to identify the pattern in
the sequence of diagrams and select the next diagram in the sequence
Deductive reasoning:
Deductive reasoning involves a general rule or principle that leads to a specific conclusion.
These tests will evaluate and measure a candidates ability to make logical arguments and
draw sound conclusions based on provided data, as well as identify flaws in a piece of
information. As a result this is a useful tool in selection procedures as this type of reasoning
will be used in the workplace. This type of reasoning will often be used in verbal reasoning
tests and numerical tests, and is therefore very likely to be encountered in recruitment
processes.
Abstract reasoning:
Abstract reasoning, also known as conceptual reasoning measures your lateral thinking
ability. In these tests candidates will be tested on their ability to identify relationships,
patterns and trends. Candidates will be provided with a series of images that follow a
logical sequence or underlying rules. This may include following a rule in a sequence,
identifying a code or finding a missing diagram.
Diagrammatic reasoning:
Diagrammatic reasoning is a specific form of abstract reasoning. Tests which assess this
ability will typically show a flowchart of diagrams and symbols, with an input and an
output. Candidates will need to identify which inputs effect diagrams, and therefore
generate a specific output based on those rules.
Critical thinking:
Critical thinking tests are a type of verbal critical reasoning task which assesses various
different types of logical reasoning in arguments, assumptions and conclusions. Typical
logical abilities tested include analysing arguments, making inferences and evaluating
conclusions.

30
Another Exercise:
Alonzo, Kurt, Rudolf, and Willard are four creative artists of great talent. One is a dancer, one is a painter, one
is a singer, and one is a writer, though not necessarily in that order.
1. Alonzo and Rudolf were in the audience the night the singer made his debut on the concert stage.
30
2. Both Kurt and the writer have had their portraits painted from life by the painter.
3. The writer, whose biography of Willard was a best-seller, is planning to write a
biography of Alonzo.
4. Alonzo has never heard of Rudolf.
What is each man’s artistic field?

30

Leg Tech Final Output

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leg Tech Final Output

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leg Tech Final Output

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the Cordilleras

Legal Logic and Technique

Ricky James Rosalejos

January 31, 2019

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 1 of

Course Title: Legal Technique and Logic

Scope/Topics: -Recognizing Arguments

1. Recognize arguments from other statements, to explain the

On completion of the topics, the learner is also expected to be able to

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 2 of

 Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon,

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 3 of

A. Conclusion Indicators and Premise Indicators (Explicit Inference)

One useful method depends on the appearance of certain common indicators,

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 4 of

B. Arguments in Context (Implicit Inference)

The full force of argument and counterargument can be grasped, in most

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 5 of

On the surface they make no assertions; beneath the surface an interrogative

Arguments are sometimes obscure because one (or more) of their

II. Arguments and Explanations

How to distinguish arguments from explanations? (taken from

a. Do a group of statements give evidence, grounds, or reasons for some other

b. Is the purported conclusion better known than the purported premisses?

c. Is a causal connection asserted or implied?

d. What is the author's purpose in offering the passage?

e. What is the context of the passage?

3. Consider the following passage given in an edition of Copi's Introduction to Logic:

(Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Auburn: Mises, 1949), 763.)

Therefore, the Roman Empire crumbled to dust.

III. Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 8 of

IV. Validity and Truth

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 9 of

All mammals have lungs.

All whales are mammals.

Therefore all whales have lungs.

All four-legged creatures have wings.

All spiders have exactly four legs.

Therefore all spiders have wings.

If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be wealthy.

I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 10 of

Therefore Bill Gates is not wealthy.

Basic Logical Concepts

V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion:

All fishes are mammals.

All whales are fishes.

Therefore all whales are mammals.

All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.

Therefore all whales are mammals.

All mammals have wings.

Therefore all mammals are whales.

University of the Cordilleras

Legal Technique and Logic Second Semester: AY2018 – 2019 Page 12 of

Scope/Topics: -Paraphrasing Arguments

A second technique for the analysis of arguments is diagramming. A

In complex argumentative passages, some arguments are exceedingly