LEGAL LOGIC

Legal systems around the world vary greatly, but they usually follow civil law or common
law.

Common Law
hand.

Civil Law
Africa use a

- past legal precedents or judicial rulings are used to decide cases at

- codified statutes and ordinances rule the land. Some countries like South
combination of civil and common law.

Other Comparison

Legal
System

Type of
argument
and role of
lawyers

CIVIL LAW

COMMON LAW

Legal system originating in Europe

whose most prevalent feature is that its
core principles are codified into a
referable system which serves as the
primary source of law.

Legal system characterized by case

law, which is law developed by
judges through decisions of courts
and similar tribunals.

Inquisitorial. Judges, not lawyers, ask

questions and demand evidence.
Lawyers present arguments based on
the evidence the court finds.

Adversarial. Lawyers ask questions

of witnesses, demand production of
evidence, and present cases based
on the evidence they have
gathered.

Law is of vital importance, touching the lives of all people. The effect of law also matters a
great deal, and the costs of mistakes can be serious. In order to comply with the law it must
be understood by those it affects, and to be accepted it must be explained in terms that are
comprehensible by those to whom they are addressed. Moreover, the law must be applied in
a way which is transparent and accountable. Clearly computer systems can assist with all
these aspects, but they require clarity of meaning and soundness of reasoning: hence the
importance of logic for law.
The original use of logic in law was for representation of law in a clear and
unambiguous manner. In these approaches, reasoning was seen as simply
deduction from the resulting formal representation.

For representation and reasoning. To avoid ambiguities.

Propositions
A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true (denoted either T or 1) or false
(denoted either F or 0).
Definition: A proposition or statement is a sentence which is either true or false. If a
proposition is true, then we say its truth value is true, and if a proposition is false, we say its
truth value is false.

Argument
An argument consists of a sequence of statements called premises and a statement called
a conclusion. An argument is valid if the conclusion is true whenever the premises are all
true.

Example:
My program wont compile if it produces a division by 0 error.
My program does not produce a division by 0 error.
Therefore my program will not compile.

Logic is the science that evaluates arguments.

An argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only
one conclusion.
A statement is a sentence that is either true or false, such as "The cat is on the mat." Many
sentences are not statements, such as "Close the door, please", "How old are you?"
A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the
conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument.
A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to
convince the reader/listener. What is the argument trying to prove? There can be only
one conclusion in a single argument.
More Complex Argument

More complex arguments can use a series of rules to connect several premises to one
conclusion, or to derive a number of conclusions from the original premises which then act
as premises for additional conclusions. An example of this is the use of the rules of inference
found within symbolic logic.

Example Argument 3: (complex argument for which it is difficult to tell whether it is valid or
invalid)

I have a passing grade in this class.

I did not turn in any homework late and I passed all the tests.
I am failing my chemistry class or this class.
Therefore, it is false that I am failing chemistry, only if I turned in some of my homework
late.

This argument, it turns out, does in fact have a valid structure, even though it sounds like
nonsense. But it is practially impossible to tell just from looking at the words. In order to
come to the conclusion that this argument has a valid structure, we first need to find a way
to describe the abstract structure of this argument, free from the complicated phrases
included in this particular argument. Then we need a systematic way to check every
possible combination of events to see if all cases in which all three premises are true are
also cases in which the conclusion is true.

This is what motivates our mathematical study of formal logic: we want to find a way to
evaluate the structure of arguments, free from their complicated specific details. So, the first
thing we want to do is to find a way to write down the structure of an argument in an
abstract way.

In order to do this, we first begin by learning a few formal definitions. We begin by giving the
formal definition of a statement

Premise
(Inference)
Intermediate Conclusion (Premise)

(Inference)
Final Conclusion
--OR-(Multiple) Premise(s)
(Multiple) Intermediate Conclusion(s) (Premises)
Final Conclusion
(Any number of Ps and ICs in any combination, but leading to only one FC)

Recognizing Arguments
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 somethingthat 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 its an argument.

An argument presents premises in support of a conclusion, like this:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Deductive and Inductive

In

logic,

we

often

refer

to

the

the deductive and inductive approaches.

two

broad

methods

of

reasoning

as

Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is
informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our
topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test.
We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This
ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or
not) of our original theories.
Inductive reasoning works the
other way, moving from specific
observations

to

generalizations

and

broader
theories.

Informally, we sometimes call

this a "bottom up" approach (please note that it's "bottom up" and not "bottomsup" which is
the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night!). In
inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect
patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and
finally end up developing some
general conclusions or theories.

Validity and Truths

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.
_________________

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The first two statements, or cliams, are called the premises, while claim below the horizontal
rule is called the conclusion. In an argument, the premises are things which you hope your
interlocutor has already accepted - they may be empirical observations, for example.

Notice the convention of separating the conclusion of an argument from the premises with a
horizontal rule. An alternative is to use the \vdash symbol. A, B \vdash C means that C
follows from A and B. Alternative locutions are 'A and B entail C', 'C is a consequence of A
and B', 'A and B derive C'.

An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. In logic, truth is a property
of statements, i.e. premises and conclusions, whereas validity is a property of the argument
itself. If you talk of 'valid premises' or 'true arguments', then you are not using logical jargon
correctly.

True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid
and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness
(noun).

I suppose I ought to say what an argument is in this context. An argument is a progression

from premises to conclusion. Each statement in the argument is either a premise, or else
follows from the previous statements in the argument. So two kids shouting "'tis" and
"'tisn't" at each other does not constitute an argument, neither do two teenagers swearing
at each other. This book is here to help you behave like civilized adults. If you wish to
behave like uncivilized adults, please consult our sister project, Wikipedia.

Now sometimes you may see two adults pointing out facts to each other, and making
inferences from those facts. We might say that these two adults are 'having an argument'. To
be technical, it is a dialectic in which each side advances an argument in the sense meant
here.

Functions of Language

The formal patterns of correct reasoning can all be conveyed through ordinary language, but
then so can a lot of other things. In fact, we use language in many different ways, some of
which are irrelevant to any attempt to provide reasons for what we believe. It is helpful to
identify at least three distinct uses of language:

The informative use of language involves an effort to communicate some content. When
I tell a child, "The fifth of May is a Mexican holiday," or write to you that "Logic is the study of
correct reasoning," or jot a note to myself, "Jennifer555-3769," I am using language
informatively. This kind of use presumes that the content of what is being communicated is
actually true, so it will be our central focus in the study of logic.

An expressive use of language, on the other hand, intends only to vent some feeling, or
perhaps to evoke some feeling from other people. When I say, "Friday afternoons are
dreary," or yell "Ouch!" I am using language expressively. Although such uses don't convey
any information, they do serve an important function in everyday life, since how we feel
sometimes matters as much asor more thanwhat we hold to be true.

Finally, directive uses of language aim to cause or to prevent some overt action by a
human agent. When I say "Shut the door," or write "Read the textbook," or memo myself,
"Don't rely so heavily on the passive voice," I am using language directively. The point in
each of these cases is to make someone perform (or forswear) a particular action. This is a
significant linguistic function, too, but like the expressive use, it doesn't always relate
logically to the truth of our beliefs.

The Use of Language

3.1 Three Basic Functions of Language
.Informative: The first of these uses of language is to communicate information. Language
used to affirm or deny propositions, or to present arguments, is serving the informative
function.

.Expressive: Language that serves an expressive function is not intended to inform us of any
facts or theories concerning the world; it is not presenting information. It is used to express
emotions felt by the writer or speaker and to evoke similar feelings in the reader or listener.

.Directive: Expressive discourse as expressive focuses on neither true nor false. To apply
only the criteria of truth or falsehood, correctness or incorrectness, to a piece of expressive
discourse, such as, a love poem, is to miss the point and to lose much of its value. The
clearest examples are commands and requests.

3.2 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions

Almost any ordinary communication will probably exhibit all three uses of language. Thus a
poem, which may be primarily expressive, also may have a moral and thus also be directive.
And, of course, a poem may contain a certain amount of information as well. Effective
communication often demands that language serve multiple functions.

3.3 The Forms of Discourse

Sentences are commonly divided into four grammatical forms: declarative, interrogative,
imperative, and exclamatory.

Much discourse is intended to serve two or possibly all three functions of language
informative, expressive, directiveat once. In such cases each aspect or function of a given
passage is subject to its own proper criteria.

Logicians are most concerned with truth and falsehood and the related notions of the
correctness and incorrectness of arguments. Thus, to study logic we must be able to
differentiate discourse that functions informatively from discourse that does not.

Summary Table
Examples of Sentence Form and Function:

3.4 Emotive Words

The informative function derives from the literal meaning of the words in the sentencethe
objects, events, or attributes they refer toand the relationship among them asserted by
the sentence. The expressive content emerges because some of the words in the sentence
may also have emotional suggestiveness or impact. Words, then, can have both a literal
meaning and an emotive meaning. The literal meanings and the emotive meanings of a
word are largely independent of one another.

Language has a life of its own, independent of the facts it is used to describe.

The game confirms what common experience teaches: One and the same thing can be
referred to by words that have very different emotive impacts.

A disagreement in belief is a disagreement about the facts of the matter at handfor

example, whether or not an event has taken place. A disagreement in attitude is a
disagreement in the way the parties involved feel about the matter at handfor example,
whether or not they approve or disapprove of it.

3.5 Four kinds of relations between two people discussing some event or other
matter of fact:

1. They may agree in their beliefs regarding the occurrence of the event and in their attitude
toward it.

2. They may agree in their beliefs about the event, but disagree in their attitudes toward it.

3. They may agree in attitude, yet disagree in their beliefs about facts giving rise to that
attitude.

4. They may be in complete disharmony, disagreeing about the facts as well as in their
attitudes toward what they think the facts to be.

Determining whether a given disagreement is one of belief, or of attitude, or of both, is

sometimes difficult. It may depend on some interpretation of the words of the disputants.

The distinction between disagreements of attitude and disagreements of belief is very

useful; awareness of the different uses of language helps us to understand the kinds of
disagreements we may be confronting.

3.6 Emotively Neutral Language

Neutral language is to be preferred when factual truth is our objective. When we are trying
to learn what really the case is, or trying to follow an argument, distractions will be
frustrating; and emotion is a powerful distraction. Therefore, when we are trying to reason
about facts, referring to them in emotive language is a hindrance.

Language that is altogether neutral may not be available when we deal with some very
controversial matters. Language that is heavily charged with emotional meaning is unlikely
to advance the quest for truth.

If our aim is to communicate information, and if we wish to avoid being misunderstood, we

should use language with the least possible emotive impact.

Definition and Meaning

Genuine and Verbal Disputes
We've seen that sloppy or misleading use of ordinary language can seriously limit our
ability to create and communicate correct reasoning. As philosopher John Locke pointed out
three centuries ago, the achievement of human knowledge is often hampered by the use of
words without fixed signification. Needless controversy is sometimes produced and
perpetuated by an unacknowledged ambiguity in the application of key terms. We can
distinguish disputes of three sorts:

Genuine disputes involve disagreement about whether or not some specific

proposition is true. Since the people engaged in a genuine dispute agree on the
meaning of the words by means of which they convey their respective positions, each
of them can propose and assess logical arguments that might eventually lead to a
resolution of their differences.

Merely verbal disputes, on the other hand, arise entirely from ambiguities in the
language used to express the positions of the disputants. A verbal dispute disappears
entirely once the people involved arrive at an agreement on the meaning of their
terms, since doing so reveals their underlying agreement in belief.

Apparently verbal but really genuine disputes can also occur, of course. In cases of
this sort, the resolution of every ambiguity only reveals an underlying genuine
dispute. Once that's been discovered, it can be addressed fruitfully by appropriate
methods of reasoning.

We can save a lot of time, sharpen our reasoning abilities, and communicate with each other
more effectively if we watch for disagreements about the meaning of words and try to
resolve them whenever we can.

Kinds of Definition

The most common way of preventing or eliminating differences in the use of languages
is by agreeing on the definition of our terms. Since these explicit accounts of the meaning of
a word or phrase can be offered in distinct contexts and employed in the service of different
goals, it's useful to distinguish definitions of several kinds:
A lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within a
language community. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted meaning of
the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the accuracy with which it
captures that usage. In these pages, my definitions of technical terms of logic are lexical
because they are intended to inform you about the way in which these terms are actually
employed within the discipline of logic.
At the other extreme, a stipulative definition freely assigns meaning to a completely
new term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. Since the goal in this case is
to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, there are no existing standards
against which to compare it, and the definition is always correct (though it might fail to win
acceptance if it turns out to be inapt or useless). If I now decree that we will henceforth refer
to Presidential speeches delivered in French as "glorsherfs," I have made a (probably
pointless) stipulative definition.
Combining these two techniques is often an effective way to reduce the vagueness of a
word or phrase. These precising definitions begin with the lexical definition of a term but
then propose to sharpen it by stipulating more narrow limits on its use. Here, the lexical part
must be correct and the stipulative portion should appropriately reduce the troublesome
vagueness. If the USPS announces that "proper notification of a change of address" means
that an official form containing the relevant information must be received by the local post
office no later than four days prior to the effective date of the change, it has offered a
(possibly useful) precising definition.
Theoretical definitions are special cases of stipulative or precising definition,
distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of this term within the context of a
broader intellectual framework. Since the adoption of any theoretical definition commits us
to the acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part, we are rightly cautious in
agreeing to it. Newton's definition of the terms "mass" and "inertia" carried with them a
commitment to (at least part of) his theories about the conditions in which physical objects
move.
Finally, what some logicians call a persuasive definition is an attempt to attach emotive
meaning to the use of a term. Since this can only serve to confuse the literal meaning of the
term, persuasive definitions have no legitimate use.
Extension and Intension
A rather large and especially useful portion of our active vocabularies is taken up by
general terms, words or phrases that stand for whole groups of individual things sharing a
common attribute. But there are two distinct ways of thinking about the meaning of any
such term.
The extension of a general term is just the collection of individual things to which it is
correctly applied. Thus, the extension of the word "chair" includes every chair that is (or ever
has been or ever will be) in the world. The intension of a general term, on the other hand, is

the set of features which are shared by everything to which it applies. Thus, the intension of
the word "chair" is (something like) "a piece of furniture designed to be sat upon by one
person at a time."
Clearly, these two kinds of meaning are closely interrelated. We usually suppose that
the intension of a concept or term determines its extension, that we decide whether or not
each newly-encountered piece of furniture belongs among the chairs by seeing whether or
not it has the relevant features. Thus, as the intension of a general term increases, by
specifying with greater detail those features that a thing must have in order for it to apply,
the term's extension tends to decrease, since fewer items now qualify for its application.
Denotative and Connotative Definitions
With the distinction between extension and intension in mind, it is possible to approach
the definition of a general term (on any of the five kinds of definition we discussed last time)
in either of two ways:
A denotative definition tries to identify the extension of the term in question. Thus, we
could provide a denotative definition of the phrase "this logic class" simply by listing all of
our names. Since a complete enumeration of the things to which a general term applies
would be cumbersome or inconvenient in many cases, though, we commonly pursue the
same goal by listing smaller groups of individuals or by offering a few examples instead. In
fact, some philosophers have held that the most primitive denotative definitions in any
language involve no more than pointing at a single example to which the term properly
applies.
But there seem to be some important terms for which denotative definition is entirely
impossible. The phrase "my grandchildren" makes perfect sense, for example, but since it
presently has no extension, there is no way to indicate its membership by enumeration,
example, or ostension. In order to define terms of this sort at all, and in order more
conveniently to define general terms of every variety, we naturally rely upon the second
mode of definition.
A connotative definition tries to identify the intension of a term by providing a
synonymous linguistic expression or an operational procedure for determining the
applicability of the term. Of course, it isn't always easy to come up with an alternative word
or phrase that has exactly the same meaning or to specify a concrete test for applicability.
But when it does work, connotative definition provides an adequate means for securing the
meaning of a term.
Definition by Genus and Differentia
Classical logicians developed an especially effective method of constructing connotative
definitions for general terms, by stating their genus and differentia. The basic notion is
simple: we begin by identifying a familiar, broad category or kind (the genus) to which
everything our term signifies (along with things of other sorts) belongs; then we specify the
distinctive features (the differentiae) that set them apart from all the other things of this
kind. My definition of the word "chair" in the second paragraph of this lesson, for example,
identifies "piece of furniture" as the genus to which all chairs belong and then specifies
"designed to be sat upon by one person at a time" as the differentia that distinguishes them
from couches, desks, etc.

Copi and Cohen list five rules by means of which to evaluate the success of connotative
definitions by genus and differentia:
1. Focus on essential features. Although the things to which a term applies may
share many distinctive properties, not all of them equally indicate its true nature.
Thus, for example, a definition of "human beings" as "featherless bipeds" isn't very
illuminating, even if does pick out the right individuals. A good definition tries to point
out the features that are essential to the designation of things as members of the
relevant group.
2. Avoid circularity. Since a circular definition uses the term being defined as part of
its own definition, it can't provide any useful information; either the audience already
understands the meaning of the term, or it cannot understand the explanation that
includes that term. Thus, for example, there isn't much point in defining "cordless
'phone" as "a telephone that has no cord."
3. Capture the correct extension. A good definition will apply to exactly the same
things as the term being defined, no more and no less. There are several ways to go
wrong. Consider alternative definitions of "bird":
o

"warm-blooded animal" is too broad, since that would include horses, dogs,
and aardvarks along with birds.

"feathered egg-laying animal" is too narrow, since it excludes those birds who
happen to be male.
and

"small flying animal" is both too broad and too narrow, since it includes bats
(which aren't birds) and excludes ostriches (which are).

Successful intensional definitions must be satisfied by all and only those things that
are included in the extension of the term they define.
4. Avoid figurative or obscure language. Since the point of a definition is to explain
the meaning of a term to someone who is unfamiliar with its proper application, the
use of language that doesn't help such a person learn how to apply the term is
pointless. Thus, "happiness is a warm puppy" may be a lovely thought, but it is a
lousy definition.
5. Be affirmative rather than negative. It is always possible in principle to explain
the application of a term by identifying literally everything to which it does not apply.
In a few instances, this may be the only way to go: a proper definition of the
mathematical term "infinite" might well be negative, for example. But in ordinary
circumstances, a good definition uses positive designations whenever it is possible to
do so. Defining "honest person" as "someone who rarely lies" is a poor definition.