7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
1/42
Legal Technique and Logic
INFORMAL/PRACTICAL REASONING
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
2/42
OBJECTIVES
Informal ReasoningConcept
Distinction from Formal Logic
Tolmiens Model of Reasoning
Essential Three Parts Claim, Support & WarrantOther Parts Backing, Rebuttal & Qualifier
Fallacies
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacies of RelevanceFallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Practical Exercise / Case Analysis
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
3/42
Concept of Informal Reasoning
Informal logic has yet to come together as a
clearly defined discipline, one organized
around some well-defined and agreed upon
systematic techniques that have a definite
structure and can be decisively applied by
users.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
4/42
Concept of Informal Reasoning
It is the attempt to formulate, to test, toclarify, and to systematize concepts andprinciples for the interpretation, the
evaluation, and the sound practice ofreasoning.
Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logicthat can assess and analyze the argumentsthat occur in natural language discourse.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
5/42
Concept of Informal Reasoning
Common Misconceptions
It is philosophical analysis too broad!
It is merely a study of informal fallacies too
restrictive! It is formal logic without the formality no, where
formalism illuminates, informal logic employs it!
It only mediates between formal logic and reasoning in
the natural language no, it tackles implications thatare not entailments, and other aspects of argumentanalysis and evaluation that are not amenable to suchformal treatment.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
6/42
Concept of Informal Reasoning
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
7/42
Concept of Informal Reasoning
Premise 1: If a man holds the hand of another man,
then he is gay.
Premise 2: Her husband is holding the hand of anotherman.
Conclusion: Her husband is gay.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
8/42
Distinction from Formal Logic
Formal logic is a step by step progression from premise toconclusion.
Informal logic assumes a body of knowledge and premisesthe argument from that body of knowledge. i.e. it proceeds
stepwise from stipulation to conclusion.
Formal logic tells us that this argument is valid, in virtue ofbeing an instance of a general schematic form.
Informal logic, on the other hand, could rather conclude
that this argument lacks relevance or is informallyfallacious or invalid, as it would be frowned upon in aspecific debate.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
9/42
Distinction from Formal Logic
Formal logic looks at the schematic structure of theargument and its validity.
Informal logic looks at the content of the propositionsin the argument, determining its validity given the
current set of facts.
All handsome people are actually angels from heaven. I amhandsome. Therefore, I am an angel from heaven. (valid but notsound)
All law students are graduates of a college course. No graduate ofa college course is below 15 years of age. Therefore, no lawstudent is below 15 years of age. (valid and sound)
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
10/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
11/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
A - Hey B! If youre not married before the
normal marrying age of 20, then you are
not normal.
B - Hmph! You are normal. I dont want to be
you. Therefore, I dont want to be normal.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
12/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
Why
Limited practical value of the absolutism of formallogic, and radical uncertainty of relativism
How
Identify the basic parts of the argument
What For
To identify and analyze sources by identifying the basicelements of the arguments being made
To test and critique the argument
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
13/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
A is a married woman while B is single.
A - Hey B! If youre not married before thenormal marrying age of 20, then you are
not normal.
B - Hmph! You are normal. I dont want to be
you. Therefore, I dont want to be normal.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
14/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
A - Hey B! There are so many women here
who get married by the age of 20 that a
lot of people pester us to find ourselves
husbands . And since everyone is so keento marry us off, we are forced to re-
evaluate our lives if we go past that age
and are still single (like yourself).
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
15/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
16/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
Claim the conclusion; the position beingargued for
Data the supporting evidence to back up theclaim
Warrant the principle, provision or chain ofreasoning that connects the data tothe claim
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
17/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
Claimwe are forced to re-consider our lives ifwe go past the age of 20 and are still single.
Data there are so many women who getmarried by the age of 20; the majority, in fact.
Warrant you care about how the communityvalues the norm of women getting married bythe time they are 20.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
18/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
Qualifier a statement of how strong
your claim is by acknowledging its limits or
conditions, if there are any
Rebuttal exceptions to the claim; description
and rebuttal of counter-examples and
counter-arguments.
Backing support, justification, reasons to
back up the warrant.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
19/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
QualifierBs re-evaluation of her life is the
most important activity she can do to stop
being pressured.
Rebuttal There are people who are career-oriented and have planned beforehand to
marry late; thus, re-evaluation is not needed.
Backing Your parents will be ridiculed by your
community if you dont consider marrying
soon. Also, you will die an old maid.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
20/42
Toulmins Model of Reasoning
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
21/42
Informal Fallacies
These are patterns of reasoning that are obviously incorrect for
reasons other than a flaw in the structure of the argument.
Sometimes, even if the premises are true, it does not follow with
100% certainty that their conclusions is true. Even a good inductiveargument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that
the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only
establishes that its conclusion is probably true.
The study helps to determine when a valid argument that is not
sound is accepted as sound. Only when an argument is also sound is
it 'true' according to some fact of knowledge acceptable to all.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
22/42
Fallacies of Ambiguity
B would not want to marry if she loves women.
B loves women.
Therefore, B would not want to marry.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
23/42
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Arguments that make use of a double
meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead
or misrepresent the truth.
They contain ambiguous words or phrases,
whose meanings shift and change more or less
subtly in the course of the argument and thus
render it fallacious
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
24/42
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Equivocation
It is committed when a key word or phrase is used withtwo or more different meanings in the same argument.
Love of women could mean different things:- Eros, or romantic love
- Phileo, or love between friends or people whoshare a common interest, belief, etc.
The use of the word love subtly changes over thecourse of the argument.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
25/42
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Amphiboly
This occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement thatis ambiguous owing to some structural defect and proceedsto draw a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
Mrs. A said that she will make an effort to go aroundthe community to stress the need for the earlymarriage of women. It follows that the community hasa number of women who need to be encouraged to
marry early.
Differences from Equivocation: (1) source of ambiguity and(2) the mistake of the author vs. the intent of the author
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
26/42
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Division
The exact reverse of composition, division goes from wholeto parts. It is committed when the conclusion of anargument depends on the erroneous transference of acharacteristic from a whole onto parts.
Humanity is the most intelligent of all living things.
Every human is the most intelligent compared to allnon-human living thing.
Congress voted in favor of the bill. Therefore, eachmember of congress voted in favor of the bill.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
27/42
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Composition
This occurs when it is argued that because the partshave a certain characteristic, it follows that the wholehas the characteristic, too, and the situation is such
that the characteristic in question cannot belegitimately transferred from the parts to the whole.
Every person in the community can sing beautifully.Therefore, the community can sing beautifully.
A prick of a needle is tolerable. Therefore, to bepricked by a million needles is likewise tolerable.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
28/42
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Accent
This occurs when the arguer illegitimately stresses one or morewords in the given statement and then proceeds to draw aconclusion based on the resultant interpretation.
It arises from the mistaken interpretation of a statement but themistake is due to the ambiguity in the way the statement is spoken.
B said that(she) does not(want to marry) (her) (boyfriend)(within this week).
B could mean that: (1) Somebody else wants to marry herboyfriend, (2) She just wants things to stay as is, (3) She wants tomarry someone elses, (4) She wants to marry someone not herboyfriend, or (5) She wants to marry but at a later time.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
29/42
Fallacies of Relevance
These are attempts to prove a conclusion byoffering considerations that simply dont bear onits truth. Arguments that commit fallacies ofrelevance do not offer relevant supporting
evidence; the considerations that they offer insupport of their conclusion are irrelevant todetermining whether that conclusion is true.
The considerations offered by such are usuallypersuasive, however, even if they dont have anyevidential value.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
30/42
Fallacies of Relevance
Ad Hominem / Genetic Fallacy
It attempts to discredit a point of view by discrediting the person or sourcethat holds it. The character of the person or source that holds a view,though, entails nothing about the truth of that view.
Bandwagon Fallacy It is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an
idea as a reason for accepting it as true. The arguer takes the mere factthat an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for the listener tojoin in with the trend and become an adherent of the idea himself.
Fallacists Fallacy It involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered
for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view,and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of viewis false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
31/42
Fallacies of Relevance
Gamblers Fallacy
It is assuming that short-term deviations from probabilitywill be corrected in the long-term.
Moralistic Fallacy It moves from statements about how things ought to be to
statements about how things are; it assumes that the worldis as it should be.
Naturalistic Fallacy Opposite of the moralistic fallacy, it moves from
descriptions of how things are to statements of how thingsought to be
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
32/42
Fallacies of Relevance
Irrelevant Appeals
These are attempts to sway the listener with information that,though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Some of the types are appeals to: Antiquity or Tradition,Authority, Consequences, Force, Novelty, Pity, Emotion,Popularity, Poverty, and Wealth.
(consequences) B does not believe in marrying early;stating that if she did, then she would be depressed for
being single for so long.
(wealth) A told B that since Bs aunt is already rich, then it iseasier for the aunt to bear her being single compared to B.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
33/42
Fallacies of Relevance
Red Herring Fallacy
It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed
when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from
his argument by introducing another topic.
Weak Analogy Fallacy
An argument by analogy is only as strong as thecomparison on which it rests. It is committed
when the comparison is not strong enough.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
34/42
Fallacies of Relevance
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
35/42
Fallacies of Relevance
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
36/42
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
These are cases where the proof or evidence
provided in support of a claim are not enough
to justify it, and that such lack is disguised by
sweeping generalization or by withholding itslimitations altogether.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
37/42
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Fallacy of Exclusion Leaving out evidence that would lead to a different conclusion is
called the fallacy of exclusion.
A tells B that since 2008, majority of the women in the community
have been marrying early. Therefore, early marriage is espoused by it.(excluded: from 1900 to 2007, women have married late)
Fallacy of Oversimplification
In this fallacy, in which the relationship of causation betweenevents is misconstrued by either exaggerating the effect or reducing
the effect to the point that it no longer reflects the genuine natureof that relationship.
B argues that since A has started to pester her to marry, she has beenhaving identity and self-esteem issues.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
38/42
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Fallacy of Exclusion A hasty generalization bases a conclusion on too little
evidence.
A tells B that more women married early this year than lastyear. It follows that her advice to B is becoming more accepted.
Appeal to Ignorance
It asserts a proposition is true simply on the basis that it
has not been proved false or that it is false simply becauseit has not been proved true.
B tells A that a Mr. Right who is perfect for her does not existbecause his existence has not been proven.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
39/42
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Slippery Slope Fallacy It asserts that some event must inevitably follow from
another without any argument for the inevitability of theevent in question.
B tells A that she cant follow As advice to marry early. If shedid, A would then pressure B to have 12 children. The next thingshe knows, A will dictate in what schools Bs future children willstudy in.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
40/42
Practical Exercises
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
41/42
Practical Exercise
Claim Fernando Poe, Jr. is a Filipino citizenand is eligible to run for the presidency.
Data His father was covered by the enmasse Filipinization of 1902.
Warrant Section 1, Article IV of the 1987 ConstitutionQualifier The same holds true even for illegitimatechildren of a Filipino parent as long asfiliation is established.
Rebuttal There is no proof that his father was in the
Philippines during that time.Backing The prevailing jurisprudence is that
citizenship is inherited from Filipinoparent/s, not where you were born.
7/27/2019 Informal Logic (study version).ppt
42/42
References
Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Informal Logic and the Theory of Reasoning, University of Nevada, 1984
Ralph W. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair, Informal Logic: An Overview, University of Windsor, 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Two
http://rstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/11/getting -qed-part-1/
http://owlet.letu.edu/contenthtml/research/toulmin.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/informal-logic/
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/05/26/classical-rhetoric-101-logical-fallacies/
http://online.santarosa.edu/homepage/bgear/FALLACYLIST.htm
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Basic Instructions comic by Scott Meyer
Calvin and Hobbes comic by Bill Waterson
Top Related