Disclaimer: document is not for external use and may not be used as the basis for any commercial

,legal or regulatory
decisions other than the assessment of this proposal.

Ms. Bandana Singh

Guest Faculty
Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow

TYPES OF LOGICAL REASONING

1) DEDUCTIVE REASONING:

 Deductive reasoning involves drawing logical conclusions based on established

premises or principles.
 It is a top-down approach, where general principles are applied to specific instances or
cases.
 Deductive reasoning aims to provide valid and certain conclusions if the premises are
true.

II. Components of Deductive Reasoning:

Major Premise:

The major premise is a general principle, rule, or statement that is accepted as true or valid.

It establishes a broad framework for reasoning and serves as the foundation for deductive
arguments.

Minor Premise:

The minor premise is a specific instance or case that is being considered or analyzed.

It provides specific information or evidence related to the given situation.

Conclusion:

The conclusion is the logical outcome or inference derived from applying the major premise
to the minor premise.

It represents a specific and certain result based on the established premises.

III. Process of Deductive Reasoning:

Major Premise:

Start with a well-established major premise that is widely accepted as true within the relevant
context.

Minor Premise:

Identify the specific case or instance under consideration.

Gather relevant facts, evidence, or information related to the specific situation.

Applying the Major Premise:

Apply the major premise to the minor premise, using logical reasoning to draw a conclusion.

Conclusion:

Based on the logical application of the major premise to the minor premise, a specific and
certain conclusion is reached.

IV. Examples of Deductive Reasoning:

 Example: Major Premise - All humans are mortal. Minor Premise - John is a human.
Conclusion - Therefore, John is mortal.
 Example: Major Premise - If it rains, the ground gets wet. Minor Premise - It is
raining. Conclusion - Therefore, the ground is wet.
 Example: Major Premise - All apples are fruits. Minor Premise - This is an apple.
Conclusion - Therefore, this is a fruit.

2) INDUCTIVE REASONING:

 Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions based on specific instances

or observations.
 It is a bottom-up approach, where specific examples or evidence are used to reach
broader generalizations or conclusions.
 Inductive reasoning aims to establish probability or likelihood rather than absolute
certainty.
II. Process of Inductive Reasoning:

Observation:

Inductive reasoning begins with specific instances or observations.

Examples, data, or evidence are collected and analyzed to identify patterns or trends.

Pattern Identification:

Based on the observations, patterns or regularities are identified.

These patterns may involve similarities, correlations, or recurring characteristics among the
instances.

Formulating a Hypothesis:

A hypothesis or generalization is formulated based on the identified patterns.

The hypothesis suggests that what holds true in the specific instances is likely to hold true in
general.

Testing and Evaluation:

The formulated hypothesis is tested against new instances or evidence.

If the hypothesis continues to hold true in the new instances, it gains strength and credibility.

Conclusion:

Based on the accumulated evidence and the consistency of the hypothesis, a general
conclusion is drawn.

The conclusion represents a probable or likely outcome based on the observed patterns.
III. Examples of Inductive Reasoning:

1. Example: Observing multiple instances of swans and noticing that they are all white.
 Hypothesis: All swans are white.
 Conclusion: Based on the observed instances, it is likely that all swans are white.
However, further evidence may challenge this conclusion (e.g., observing a black
swan).
2. Example: Conducting surveys on a sample population to gather data on their voting
preferences.
 Identifying patterns: Analyzing the collected data to identify trends or patterns in the
voting preferences.
 Hypothesis: Based on the observed patterns, a hypothesis can be formulated about the
preferences of the larger population.
 Conclusion: A general conclusion is drawn regarding the probable voting preferences
of the larger population based on the observed patterns in the sample.

Reasoning
Type Definition Process Example

1. Begin with
established principles
or premises.

2. Apply these Example: Major Premise: All vehicles must

principles to specific obey traffic rules
cases or situations.
Deductive reasoning starts with
general principles or premises and Minor Premise: Car X is a vehicle
applies them to specific instances 3. Draw conclusions
or cases. It aims to draw logical based on the logical
Deductive conclusions that are necessarily application of the Conclusion: Therefore, Car X must obey
Reasoning true if the premises are valid. premises. traffic rules.

Inductive Inductive reasoning involves 1. Begin with Example: Observation: In multiple cases,
Reasoning drawing general conclusions based specific instances or courts have ruled in favor of employees in
Reasoning
Type Definition Process Example

observations.
gender discrimination claims.

2. Identify patterns,
trends, or Inductive Reasoning: Based on the observed
correlations among pattern, it can be inferred that courts
the instances. generally prioritize gender equality in
employment discrimination cases

on specific instances or 3. Draw general

observations. It aims to establish conclusions based on Conclusion: Therefore, future cases
probability or likelihood rather the observed involving similar circumstances may result
than absolute certainty. patterns. in similar outcomes.

1. Compare two or
more cases or Example:Case A involved a situation where
situations to identify a defendant used self-defense to justify their
similarities. actions.

2. Identify legal Case B has similar circumstances, with the

principles or defendant claiming self-defence.
outcomes established
in one case.
Analogical reasoning involves Analogical Reasoning: Based on the
drawing conclusions based on similarities between the two cases, it can be
similarities between different 3. Apply those legal argued that the legal principles applied in
cases or situations. It identifies principles or Case A should also be applied in Case B.
shared characteristics and applies outcomes to the other Conclusion: Therefore, the defendant in
Analogical legal principles from one case to case based on the Case B should be evaluated under the self-
Reasoning another. similarities. defence framework, similar to Case A.

Difference between Deductive, Inductive & Analogical Reasoning

 Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning Analogical Reasoning

Starts with general principles Draws general conclusions based Draws conclusions based on
or premises and applies them on specific instances or similarities between different
Definition to specific instances or cases. observations. cases or situations.

Begins with established Begins with specific instances or

principles or premises, applies observations, identifies patterns Identifies similarities between
them to specific cases, and or trends, and draws general different cases or situations and
draws specific and certain conclusions based on the draws conclusions based on
Process conclusions. observed patterns. those similarities.

Major Premise: General

principle or rule. Minor
Premise: Specific instance or Comparing two or more cases
case. Conclusion: Specific and or situations to draw
certain outcome derived from Specific instances or observations conclusions based on
Structure the premises. leading to a general conclusion. similarities.

Deductive in nature, moving Inductive in nature, moving from

from general principles to specific instances to general Relies on similarities between
Nature specific conclusions. conclusions. cases to draw conclusions.

Aims to provide valid and Establishes probability or Provides plausible conclusions

certain conclusions if the likelihood rather than absolute based on similarities, but with
Certainty premises are true. certainty. some degree of uncertainty.

Useful for making Useful for drawing conclusions

Useful for interpreting legal generalizations, formulating in cases where there are
principles, analyzing legal hypotheses, and predicting similarities but not enough
rules, and constructing logical outcomes in legal cases based on precedent or established
Application arguments. observed patterns. principles.

Observing multiple cases and Comparing two cases with

noticing a consistent pattern in similar factual circumstances
Major Premise: All men are the judgments. Formulating a and drawing a conclusion
mortal. Minor Premise: John hypothesis based on the pattern based on the similarity, even if
is a man. Conclusion: and drawing a general there is no established
Examples Therefore, John is mortal. conclusion. precedent.

Examples of Deductive, Inductive & Analogical Reasoning

 Deductive
Reasoning Inductive Reasoning Analogical Reasoning

Analogical Reasoning:

Case A involved a contract dispute

where the court ruled in favor of the
Inductive Reasoning: party who provided clear evidence
of performance.
Deductive Observation: In multiple contract law
Reasoning: Major cases, courts have ruled in favor of Case B has similar circumstances,
Premise: All the party with a well-drafted and with clear evidence of performance.
contracts require unambiguous contract.
Analogical Reasoning: Based on the
mutual consent.
Inductive Reasoning: Based on the similarities between the two cases, it
Minor Premise: observed pattern, it can be inferred can be argued that the legal
Contract A was that courts prioritize well-drafted and principles applied in Case A should
formed without unambiguous contracts. also be applied in Case B.
mutual consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, future cases Conclusion: Therefore, the party
Contract Conclusion: with well-drafted and unambiguous with clear evidence of performance
Law Therefore, Contract contracts may be more likely to result in Case B should be favoured,
Example A is invalid. in a favourable outcome. similar to Case A.

Analogical Reasoning:

Case A involved a criminal case

where the defendant was convicted
of murder based on DNA evidence
Inductive Reasoning: found at the crime scene.

Observation: In multiple criminal Case B has similar circumstances,

Deductive
cases, courts have convicted with DNA evidence found at the
Reasoning:
defendants who were found with the crime scene.
Major Premise: murder weapon and had a motive to
Analogical Reasoning: Based on the
Murder is a criminal harm the victim.
similarities between the two cases, it
offense.
Inductive Reasoning: Based on the can be argued that the legal
Minor Premise: John observed pattern, it can be inferred principles applied in Case A should
intentionally caused that defendants found with the murder also be applied in Case B.
the death of another weapon and having a motive are more
Conclusion: Therefore, the
person. likely to be convicted of murder.
defendant in Case B should be
Criminal Conclusion: Conclusion: Therefore, defendants in considered as a suspect for murder
Law Therefore, John is similar circumstances may face a based on the DNA evidence, similar
Example guilty of murder. higher likelihood of being convicted. to Case A.

SYLLOGISM
  Syllogism is a logical reasoning tool that involves using two premises to reach a valid
conclusion. It is a deductive reasoning method commonly employed in legal analysis
and argumentation.
 A syllogism follows a specific structure:

Major Premise: This is a general statement or principle that is universally accepted or

assumed to be true within a legal framework.

Minor Premise: This is a specific statement or fact that is connected to the major premise and
provides more particular information or evidence.

Conclusion: This is the logical outcome that follows from the major and minor premises. It is
considered to be necessarily true if the premises are valid.

 Here are a few examples of syllogisms

Example 1:

 Major Premise: All persons below the age of 18 are considered minors under the law.
 Minor Premise: John is 15 years old. Conclusion:
 Therefore, John is a minor under the law.

Example 2:

 Major Premise: In criminal cases, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
 Minor Premise: In Case A, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence.
 Conclusion: Therefore, the defendant in Case A cannot be found guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Example 3:

 Major Premise: Contracts require mutual consent between the parties involved.
 Minor Premise: In Contract A, one party was coerced into signing the agreement.
 Conclusion: Therefore, Contract A is voidable due to lack of mutual consent.
These examples illustrate how syllogisms can be used to construct logical arguments in legal
contexts, helping to establish conclusions based on the interplay between general legal
principles and specific factual circumstances.

Definitions:
Syllogism is a logical reasoning method widely used in the field of law, particularly in legal
analysis and argumentation. Jurists have provided various definitions of syllogism,
emphasizing its role in deductive reasoning and its application in legal discourse. Here are a
few definitions of syllogism provided by renowned jurists:

Sir William Blackstone: "By syllogism, we mean a regular deduction of two propositions
from a third, called the middle term, which is common to both of the others; and the whole
process of arguing, or inferring one proposition from two others, is called a syllogism."

John Austin: "A syllogism, then, is a mediate or inferential proposition deduced from two
others, one of which is named the major, the other the minor."

Sir Frederick Pollock: "The syllogism in law is the regular form of deductive reasoning by
which a conclusion necessarily follows from two premises, one of them general and the other
particular."

Use of Syllogism:

Syllogism is a fundamental tool used in the field of law to construct logical arguments and
draw valid conclusions based on established legal principles and specific facts.

Examples of Syllogism:

A. Statutory Interpretation:

 Major Premise: The law states that all individuals have the right to a fair trial.
 Minor Premise: The defendant was denied legal representation during the trial.
 Conclusion: Therefore, the defendant's right to a fair trial was violated, and the
conviction should be overturned.

Benefits of Syllogism:
A. Clarity and Structure:

 Syllogism provides a clear and structured framework for legal reasoning.

 It helps in organizing legal arguments and presenting them in a logical manner.

B. Logical Reasoning:

 Syllogism facilitates deductive reasoning, ensuring that conclusions are valid and
necessary based on the premises.
 It helps in constructing sound legal arguments and making persuasive cases.

C. Application in Legal Analysis:

 Syllogism is used to interpret legal rules, statutes, and precedents.

 It aids in deriving legal principles from established authorities and applying them to
specific cases
.

Syllogism plays a vital role in the field of law by allowing legal professionals to construct
logical arguments and draw valid conclusions. The examples provided illustrate how
syllogism is used in statutory interpretation, case law analysis, and legal argumentation. By
employing syllogistic reasoning, legal practitioners can enhance their ability to interpret laws,
analyze cases, and present persuasive legal arguments in support of their positions.