OLABISI ONABANJO UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
Course Code: PHL 106
Course Title: Arguments and Evidence
Credit Unit: 3
Course Status: Required
Semester: Rain
Required Study Hour: 2 hours per week
Year of Course: 2019/2020
Course Instructor: Dr Adebayo Aina
Introduction
Course Objectives
By the end of the course, you will be able to:
1. Improve the quality of critical thinking
2. Initiate the preparedness of Legal mindsets on the courtroom trial and advocacy
Working through this Course
This course is specially designed to cater for the needs of Philosophy and law students, though it
is open to all first year toward improving their art of critical thinking method. It treats topics such
as sophistical refutations and defenses, analogy, presentations, analysis and creation of genuine
philosophical argumentation; testimony, statistics and probability, evidence and proof, legal
arguments, etc.

Each study has introduction, the main content and practice questions. The introduction will
enlighten you on what to expect in the study. The main content provokes thoughts in relation to
the subject discuss with a view to bringing home the point relevant to the study. Finally, you are
expected to assess your level of understanding with the questions at the end of study.

Recommended texts

Achilike, Jossy. Ed. 1999. Fundamentals of Logic. Ibadan: Ben-El books.

Ali, Samuel, A. 2003. Logic Made Easy (Questions and Answers). Ijebu-Ode: Vicoo Inter. Press.

Evans, C. (2010) Criminal Justice: Evidence. New York: Chelsea HouseHead, M and Mann,
Scott (2005) Law in Perspective: Ethics, Society and Critical Thinking. Sydney: University of
South Wales Press

Irving, Copi, M and Cohen, Carl.2000. Introduction to Logic.9th ed. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.

Juthe, A (2005) ‘Argument by Analogy’ in Argumentation, 19, Spring: 1-27

Kemmerling, Garth (2002) ‘Analogy’ in Britannica: Internet Guide Selection, retrieved 26th
August, 2008.

Study units

There are 21 units with practice questions for self assessment in the course

Module 1: What is Argument? Types of Argument: Deductive and Inductive

Unit 1 Argument

Unit 2 Identification of Argument

Unit 3 Types of Argument

3.2 Inductive Argument

3.2.1 Types of Inductive Argument

3.3 Deductive Argument

3.3.1 General to Particular

 3.3.2 General to General

3.3.3 Rules of inference

Unit 4. Evaluation of Arguments [Validity, Invalidity, Sound and Unsound]

4.1.1 Validity

4.1.2 Invalidity

4.2 Relationship between Sound and Unsound Arguments

Unit 5 Practice Exercises

Module 2: Disagreement, Types of Disagreement: Factual, Verbal, Evaluative and

Interpretative

Unit 1 Disagreement

Unit 2 Types of Disagreement

Unit 3 Practice Exercises

Module 3: Argument by Analogy: Meaning, Evaluation and Relevance

Unit 1 Meaning and Nature of Argument by Analogy

Unit 2 Evaluation of Analogical Arguments

Unit 3 The relevance of Analogical Argument

Unit 4 Practice Exercises

Modules 4: Syllogism: Types of Syllogism, Enthymemes.

Unit 1 Syllogism and types of Syllogism

4.1.1 Categorical Syllogism

4.1.2 Hypothetical Syllogism

Unit 2 Enthymemes

4.2.1 First Order Enthymeme

4.2.2 Second Order Enthymeme

4.2.3Third Order Enthymeme

Unit 3 Practice Exercises

Module 5: Meaning and nature of Sophistical Refutation.

Unit 1 Meaning of Sophistical Refutation

Unit 2 Practice Exercise

Module 6: Evidence: Meaning of evidence, basis of evidence, cross-examination, and Logic

and the law

Unit 1 Meaning of Evidence

Unit 2 Basis of evidence

Unit 3 Logic and the law

Unit 4 Practice Questions

Module 1: What is Argument? Types of Argument: Deductive and Inductive

Introduction

Our aim here is to introduce you to argument and its types.

1.1 Argumentn argument, as a term in logic, refers to a set of statements, in which one or more
statement – the premises- provide reason or justification for the truth, reasons to believe, of
another proposition- the conclusion. A statement is a representation that is either true or false.
Typically, this may be referred to as a declarative sentence, but statements can be made in many
different ways, including the use of pictures and gestures. The premises represent the statement
put up for the reasons or justification, while the conclusion is the statement that the evidence is
claimed to support or imply in the argument. For example:

P1 If you break the law, you will be sanctioned

P2 You break the law

C Therefore you will be punished

Above represents the standard format in an argument. Closely related to the concepts of
argument and statement are those of inference and proposition. An inference in the technical
sense of the term connotes the reasoning process expressed by an argument- From P1 through P2
to the Conclusion. It revolves around the movement from one or more pieces of information –A,
B, C- to another piece of information –D. Hence LOGICAL IMPLICATION is a relation
between statements or ideas. A implies B where it really is the case that B follows from A. Also,
a proposition is the meaning or ‘information content’ of a statement. It implies the validity,
invalidity, sound or unsound, high and low probability in an argument (This will be discussed
later in the course). However, it should be noted that an entire argument can be stated in a single
sentence, but often several sentences are employed in its formation. In the presentation of an
argument, its conclusion may either PRECEDE or FOLLOW all the premises. It may come in-
between two of them. In addition, the conclusion may not be stated explicitly or implied by the
very statement of the premises. The premises of special terms functioning as PREMISES
INDICATORS or CONCLUSION INDICATORS often help us to identify and distinguish the
premises and conclusion of an argument. A passage containing an argument may also involve
propositions that are neither premises nor conclusion of that argument, but are information that
help the reader or hearer to understand what the premises and conclusion are about.

2.1 Identification of Argument

As exemplified by our illustration on argument above, there are some indicators responsible to
distinguish the premises from conclusion as well as premises from premises with a view to
making argument clear most importantly in a complex argument. However in understanding an
argument it is important to:

 To recognize the conclusion

  To recognize the reasons or evidence put forward for the conclusion

There are two types of indicator- Premise Indicator and Conclusion Indicator

A. There are certain words used to indicate premises in an argument- PREMISE INDICATOR.
There are two types of this indicator- GENERAL PREMISE INDICATOR AND SPECIFIC
PREMISE INDICATOR

-General Premise Indicator is responsible to separate premises from conclusion- For, Because,
Since, This is so, For the following reasons, After all, This follows from, etc.

- Specific Premise Indicator assist in separating premise from premise in an argument- Firstly,
Secondly, Thirdly, In the first place, In the second place, In addition, Moreover, However, Also
consider this, On the one hand, on the other hand, Nevertheless, And, But, etc.

B. Conclusion Indicator. It aids the separation and identification of Conclusion in an argument-

Therefore, So, Consequently, I maintain that, Thus, We can conclude that, Hence, As a result,
We can then say that, etc.

3.1 Types of Argument

Arguments can be categorized as Inductive and Deductive arguments.

3.1.1 Inductive Argument

An argument is inductive if its premise(s) only support but do (es) not guarantee its conclusion.
On the other hand, it is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion
in such a way that if they are assumed true, then based on that assumption it is improbable that
the conclusion is false (that is, it is probable that the conclusion is true). In these arguments, the
conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises. Likewise, it is a statement in
such a way that from one set of factual proposition (premises), it moves to another (conclusion).
Such as:xs

i. P1 This riped tomato is red-coloured

P2 That riped tomato is red-coloured

 C All riped tomatoes are red-coloured

ii. P1 Copper a metal conducts electricity

P2 Bronze a metal conducts electricity

C All metals conduct electricity

iii P1 Jingo a Yoruba man with tribal mark

P2 Bongo a Yoruba man with tribal mark

P3 Jack a Yoruba man with tribal mark

P4 John a Yoruba man with tribal mark

C All Yoruba men have tribal marks

iv. In the first throw of the coin, the coin turned tail

In the second throw of the coin, the coin turned tail

So it is in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th throw of the coin

C the 9th throw of the coin will turn tail

3.2.1 Types of Inductive Argument

There are two types of Inductive argument. The first involves those that move from Particular to
General. The premises are Particular instances, while the conclusion is General instance
(Beginning with All in most cases). Examples i, ii and iii suffices. The second type is those that
go from Particular instance to Particular instance. This implies that both premises and conclusion
instances are Particular in nature- Example iv above suffice. By and large, if the premises do in
fact provide such strong support for the conclusion, the argument is said to be (inductively)
strong. A strong inductive argument is such that if the premises were true then based on that
assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. Conversely, a weak inductive argument is
such that if the premises are assumed true, then based on that assumption it is not probable that
the conclusion is true.
3.3 Deductive Argument

It is one whose premises not only support but also guarantee its conclusion. It claimed that it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. Likewise, if the premises are
true, it is unlikely for the conclusion to be untrue. If the premises do in fact support the
conclusion in this way the argument is said to be valid. While an invalid argument is such that if
the premises are assumed true it is possible for the conclusion to be false. There are three types
of Deductive argument

3.3.1 First, those that moves from General to Particular :

i. P1 All oouites are registered students

P2 Jingo is an Oouite

C Jingo is a registered student

ii P1 All metals expand when heated

P2 Copper is a metal

C Copper expands when heated

iii P1 All metals conduct electricity

P2 Iroko tree is a metal

C Iroko tree conducts electricity

iv. P1 All human Beings are mortal

P2 Jingo is a human being

C Jingo is Mortal

3.3.2 Those that proceed from General to General

i. P1 All women are human beings

P2 All mothers are human beings

 C All mothers are women

ii P1 All human Beings are mortal

P2 All Nigerians are human beings

C All Nigerians are mortal

iii P1 All Mangoes are pineapples

P2 All Pineapples are stones

C All mangoes are stones

3.3.3 Those Deductive arguments formulated in tandem with some rules of inference

i. Modus ponens

P1 If p, then q {If Jingo is a Nigerian, then OOU is in Ago-Iwoye}

P2 P {Jingo is a Nigerian}

C q {OOU is in Ago-Iwoye}

ii. Modus tollens

P1 If p, then q { If Covid-19 persists, then the world are doomed}

P2 Not q {The world is not doomed}

C Not p {Covid-19 not persists}

iii Hypothetical syllogism

P1 If P, then q {If Jingo is a Nigerian, then PMB is the President}

P2 If q, then r {If PMB is the President, then OOU is in Ago-Iwoye}

C If P, then r { If Jingo is a Nigerian, then OOU is in Ago-Iwoye}

3.4 Evaluation of Arguments[ Validity, Invalidity, Sound and Unsound]

3.4.1 Validity

An argument is said to be valid if it has a valid logical form, and a logical form is valid if there is
no argument of that form which has true premises and a false conclusion. That is, the conclusion
follows from the given premise(s). Some basic valid forms of argument are those illustrated in
the three types of Deductive argument above (A-C). Nevertheless, the conditionality for a valid
argument is:

 The conclusion must be inferred from the premises

 The supportive power of the premise(s) must guarantee the conclusion

3.4.2 Invalidity

An argument is invalid when the premise(s) do (es) not support the conclusion. The condition
under which this is observed represents the obverse of validity above. In another words, it is such
that if the premises are assumed true it is possible for the conclusion to be false. For example

P1 All Nigerians are die-hard

P2 Jingo is a Nigerian

C Jingo is an OOUites

3.4 Relationship between Sound and Unsound Arguments

A sound argument is of deductive class with the following features:

 The argument must be valid

 Its premises are true
 Its conclusion is true

Let us look into the following examples:

i P1 Prof. Olatunji is the Vice-chancellor of Olabisi Onabanjo University

P2 Olabisi Onabanjo University operates multi-campus system

C Prof. Olatunji is the Vice-chancellor of a multi-campus university

ii P1 All species of fish live in water

P2 Tilapia is fish

C Tilapia lives in water

iii P1 All men are human beings

P2 All fathers are men

C All fathers are human beings

From above illustrations, an argument is sound when the premises and conclusion are not only
true but also the structure transmits validity. However, an argument is unsound when it does not
possess any of the following: Validity, true premises and true conclusion. In this wise, the falsity
of the premises means that the conclusion is unsupported. Examples will suffice.

i. P1 All bipeds are mammal

P2 All fishes are mammal

C All bipeds are fishes

ii. P1 All human beings are rational

P2 All dogs are human beings

C All dogs are rational

iii. P1 All women are mothers

P2 All mothers are kind

C All women are kind

A cursory look at above examples shows that the arguments are valid but unsound because not
all propositions are true in all possible worlds. Thus, on the relationship between valid and sound
argument, it is true that all sound argument are valid but not all valid argument are sound
(examples i-iii above). More so, all invalid arguments are unsound but not all unsound arguments
are invalid.

3.5 Practice Exercises

1. What is argument? Explain these concepts: premises, conclusion, inference and proposition.

2. What is the role of indicators in recognizing arguments? Distinguish the types of indicators
known to you

3. Distinguish between inductive and deductive arguments

4. Identify the premises and conclusions in the following passages. Carefully arrange in standard
format.

a. I maintain that company property ought to be taxed heavily. Afterall for the most part,
companies make a lot of profit. Moreover, companies do not contribute enough to social
services. Furthermore, payment of taxes will demonstrate commitments to the country.

b. On the one hand, if you study Philosophy, the chances are that you will not make millions. On
the other hand, if you major in Economics, you may get a lucrative job but economists do not do
well as business men and women. It follows from all these that you should major in business to
be successful.

c. Breast feeding is better for infant nutrition in the first few months of life, it contains factors
that are protective during infanthood. A breast fed baby is less likely than a formular fed baby to
suffer allergy. Breast feeding is mandatory where hygienic and sanitary conditions are
inadequate.

d. People who smoke cigarettes should be forced to pay their own hospital and medical care
because they know smoking is harmful and because they have no right to expect society to pay
for the consequences of their frivolity.

Module 2: Disagreement, Types of Disagreement: Factual, Verbal, Evaluative and

Interpretative

Introduction
The section aims to revitalize the essence of disagreement in philosophical discourse. You will at
the end of study realize that most disagreement sometimes are mere evolvement of different
usage of words, semantics, etc.

2.1 Disagreement

For there to be disagreement, two persons must have engaged each other where on deny the
statement affirmed by the other. But where two people are saying different things on the same or
different issues which could both be true, then there is no disagreement. For example, if I say I
am a Nigerian and a friend says no, you are a university teacher, there is no disagreement. There
could only be disagreement if my friend said that I am not a Nigerian. However, when two
people disagree, they could both be right, they can both be wrong. We shall next consider four
types of disagreement: Factual, Verbal, Evaluative and Interpretative

2.2: Types of Disagreement

2.2.1. Factual Disagreement

A factual disagreement is one which can be resolved if it is resolvable through empirical means
by counting, measuring, reading, talking, smelling, tasting, looking, etc. Examples will suffice:

i. Jingo: Isama wrote “Because I was involved”

Manga: No, he wrote “Why we struck”

Bongo: I am sure that the author of “Because I was involved” is Odumegu Ojukwu

Generally, disagreement occurs where two or more parties are involved in an issue. From above
dialogue, there is no factual disagreement between Jingo and Manga because their sources of
difference are parallel in nature. Whereas there is disagreement between Jingo and Bongo in the
sense that both referred to the same issue (Because I was Involved) but different authors. Hence,
the factual means of resolving above disagreement is to consult the appropriate Book.

ii. Jingo: The Earth is round

Bongo: Stupid. You know little Geography, the Earth is square

 Manga: Well the Earth is red

There is disagreement between Jingo and Bongo. No disagreement between Bongo and Manga.
Finally, there is no disagreement between Jingo and Manga.

2.2.2Verbal Disagreement

This is a disagreement initiated through different usage of words. It may as well be referred to as
apparent disagreement. In this case, the people involved would seem to disagree but a closer look
at their views or arguments would reveal that they mean different things by the same word or
words. However they could both be right. So, there is no real disagreement between them but the
problem is with the word they interpreted differently.

i. Jingo: “Stone-walls do not make a prison” is a stupid saying as the man in prison is not free.

Manga: It is quite possible to be in prison and be free. You can decide either to eat or not
while in prison

In above example, Jingo conception of being imprisoned is the constraint to move about and go
anywhere on wishes. Manga, on the other hand, means lack of constraint in choosing either to eat
or not as being free.

ii. Jingo: Mr. Johnson is a progressive. He is a member of one of the progressive party in his
town

Bongo: You can be fool easily. Mr Johnson did not condemn corrupt practices as a Students’
Union president and so, he is not a progressive.

From above disagreement, it is apparent that Jingo only meant by progressive a member of a
progressive party, whereas Bongo regards a progressive person as anyone interested in attacking
corruption.

2.2.3Evaluative Disagreement

As the name connotes, the disagreement revolves around whether something or person is good or
bad, beautiful or ugly; whether something ought to be done or not, desirable or not, etc. let us
look into the following examples below:
i. Jingo: Apostle James John is a fake; see how he extorts money from his followers.

Bongo: I certainly disagree. In my view, he is one of the best Apostles encountered by me

recently

Jingo: I see, but he is not a good messenger of God.

We are here to resolve whether Apostle James John is truly God sent which is more of an
assessment of his deeds amongst the congregation. Hence this could only be known by putting
him to test in order to determine his character to underscore his genuineness as a man of God.

ii. Jingo: Aropin is a ggod film. It portrays African culture.

Bongo: Aropini is a very bad film. It portrays African culture but in its superstitious aspects.
Moreso, it does not show people how to make social and cultural advancement.

Jingo: I agree it does not do that, I still think it is a good film.

In this dialogue , Jingo and Bongo agree on what film they are talking about. They agree that it
portrays African culture and that it does not teach people how to make social and cultural
advancement. Hence they do not disagree on factual basis. Their point of disagreement is
evaluative, whether the film aesthetically is good or bad. Though may be subjective, but further
subjection to opinion poll could clarify the disagreement. Nevertheless, another related to this is
the next illustration which may generate more than one type of disagreement.

iii. Jingo: Cigarette smoking ought to be banned by law. Cigarettes are harmful and anything
harmful to the health should be banned.

Bongo: I agree that harmful drugs should be banned. Cigarettes are not harmful, they should
not be banned.

These are forms of disagreement within the confine of Factual and Evaluative. Jingo and Bongo
agreed that anything harmful ought to be banned. But their disagreements are both evaluative
{that cigarette should be banned or should not be banned} and factual {cigarette are harmful and
cigarette are not harmful}. Now, we need first to consider the harmfulness or otherwise of
cigarette through empirical means (Factual Disagreement). This is because the disagreement can
be verified by experiment. Afterword, the results would determine the evaluative position as
commonly agreed that anything harmful ought to be banned which alluded to Cigarette should or
should not be banned.

2.2.4Interpretative Disagreement

It is disagreement on the interpretation of facts such as films, a play, poem, novel, fiction,
artwork, action or gesture of a person, real or fictional, physical appearance of a person, failure
of someone to do something, significance of events- political, religion, economic, etc. For
example,

i. Jingo: Dehinde is a very gentle man, he is always quiet in the class and will never argue with
anyone whether inside or outside the class.

Bongo: You can be fooled easily. It means you cannot recognize someone who carefully hides
his deficiency. The fact is that he cannot express himself fluently.

The above interpretative disagreement is engendered by the quietness of Dehinde whom Jingo
summed up to be out gentility while Bongo took to be deficiency in speaking (stammering).
However, this interpretative disagreement could only be resolved by calling the attention of
Dehinde to speak out in order to clear the air.

3 Practice Exercises

1. What is Disagreement? At what level do you think that disagreement occurs?

2. Carefully identify and explain the following disagreement:

i. Jingo: Marijuana smoking ought to be banned by law. It is harmful and anything harmful to the
health should be banned

Manga: I agree that harmful drugs should be banned, but marijuana smoking is not harmful.
Therefore, it should not be banned.

3. Carefully outline an imaginary dialogue to emphasize the importance of Evaluative

disagreement
Module 3 Argument by Analogy: Meaning, Evaluation and Relevance

Introduction

You will be able to understand the power of critical comparison at the end of study in this
section. You will also be guided by the inductive method grounded in probability

3.1 Meaning and Nature of Argument by Analogy

Argument by analogy is composed of two basic concepts: argument and analogy. By argument,
we mean an arranged set of statements of proposition (the premises, which provides the support
for the truth of another statement or proposition, conclusion). An argument is different from
other types of reasoning, like explanation or reasoning for action, because it is hinged on some
rules of inference which the latter lacks. However, there are two types of argument: Deductive
and Inductive {visit Module One for further on the meaning and nature of argument}. An
argument is deductive when the conclusion is not only inferred from the information in the
premises but also guaranteed it; whereas an inductive argument only supports but does not
guarantee what are stated in the conclusion, and this support is probable. We shall continue to
refer to this probable inference in the course of our discussion. On the other hand, analogy
etymologically means a term (with its origin in Greek) to refer to proposition, a relational
structure between two things (informative content grounded within). That is, two objects are
analogous if and only if there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the
objects. Analogy then implies similarity such that there is relational existence between the object
of reference and the circumstance.

Against this analysis, argument by analogy means an argument where the inference goesvia
analogical relation in contrast to reasoning by analogy. Reasoning by analogy denotes only
reasoning in general but not in the form of an argument. It is about solving problems, describing
something, learning or explaining things by extending our thought from things we do understand
to things we do not, at the time, comprehend (Juthe, 2005:3). It accommodates any form of
comparison in as much as there are analogical relations between the objects and circumstances.
For example, the argument that Samsung phone and the Techno phone are both in the
N75,000.00 price range and the Samsung is of excellent quality. Therefore, the Techno is
probably also of excellent quality is only based on the similarity grounded on analogical
reasoning rather than analogical argument. Hence similarity is not the same as an analogy.

However, a good argument by analogy is situated where the Analogue (A) is analogous with the
Target-Subject (TS) with regard to the Assigned-Predicate (AP) if and only if there is a one-to –
one correspondence between the elements of the analogue which determine the Assigned-
Predicate and the elements of the Target-Subject (Ibid: 5). Let us clarify this thus:

a, b, c, d all have the attribute P and Q

a, b, c all have the attribute R
Therefore, d probably has the attribute R (Copi &Cohen,2000: 455)
From above, the TS is the object d of comparison to which the conclusion of the argument by
analogy assigns a new predicate; while the object R which is compared with the TS in order to
make the analogical inference to new predicate about the TS is the Analogue (A). It is the source
of the new predicate about the TS; finally, the predicate of the Analogue which is assigned to the
TS in virtue of the analogical relation between them (R) represents the Assigned-Predicate (AP).
To this end, correct argument by analogy occurs where the TS and A are analogous with respect
to AP if and only if each of the elements of the A which determines the AP corresponds one-to-
one with a counterpart element in the TS. It shows that in as much as the TS has a counterpart of
every element of the A that determines the AP, then it mean they are analogous and that the TS
also has the AP. But an incorrect argument by analogy is that which violates one of the
conditions for a good argument by analogy. It affects elements where the AP of the A does not
correspond one-to-one with a counterpart element in the TS.

Nevertheless, argument by analogy involves the use of past experiences as a means through
which the future is determined. That is why Copi and Cohen contend that ‘no argument by
analogy is intended to be mathematically certain. Analogical arguments are not to be classified
as either valid or invalid. Probability is all that is claimed for them’ (2000: 453). For example, if
I discovered that five of my acquaintances have recently bought Toyota Matrix from Innoson
Motors and that all four have been delighted with their purchases, then I will conclude
analogously, perhaps probable, that ‘Toyota Matrix from Innoson Motors, I too will buy and will
be delighted’ (kemerling, 2002). To this end, there are a number of conditionality to decide if
this analogical statement is probable strong or weak.

3.2 Evaluation of Analogical Arguments

1. The first condition upon which the probability of an analogical argument is determined is the
number of instances. The number of occurrence of event at hand underscores the strength of
weakness of an analogy. For example, the reported satisfaction of five friends on Dell laptop
computer model tends to be more likely to satisfy me too than three friends, which may weaken
it.

2. Another criterion is the instance of variety. The purchase of Dell laptop model by my friends,
for example, will create greater probability if its circumstantial evidences show, among others,
that the computers were not only purchased from the same store, but that they were assembled by
the same company. Also, that they are of the same price range with operational efficiency under
any temperate condition.

3. The number of similarities is important. More so, if my purchase of Dell laptop computer is
not the same make and model from the same dealer but also has the same capacity, then my
conclusion is more likely to be true. In general, the more similarities there are between the
instances and my conclusion, the better for the analogical argument. (Kermerling 2000)

4. Another criterion used in evaluating analogical argument has to do with the number of
disanalogies (dissimilarities). In general, the less dissimilarity between instances and conclusion,
the better analogical argument is. The conclusion of the preceding argument is doubted if it is
pointed out that my friends’ computer sets features Intel Pentium X Processor with 907MHZ,
and 641MB of Ram which enhanced their performance in comparison to mine of Intel Pentium
III Processor of 697 MHZ and 256MB of Ram. This disanalogy between the instances in the
premise(s) and that of the conclusion weakens the argument and probability of its conclusion.

5. Relevance of instances to the argument under consideration is vital. Ordinarily, it will be

insignificant to relate analogously with the colour of the sets of computer, for example, where
there are other relevant facilities from which satisfaction of purchase can be derived. However,
relevance depends on our best judgement in deciding whether or not some criteria deserved to be
considered.

3.3 The relevance of Analogical Argument

By and large, argument by analogy is useful at both private and public sphere of life. It generates
out of vivid experience overtime. In the private sphere, it assists in resolving issues in order to
project for the future. This involves critical examination of issues bearing in mind similar past
experiences. That is bringing to the fore thought provoking ideas from the observed to the
unobserved. For example, suggestive decisions are personally shared with others out of past
experience.

In the public sphere, analogical argument is employed to resolve issues in the legal proceedings.
In an adversarial context for example, both counsels to either party will typically seek to
assimilate the present case to past with an outcome that would be favourable to them if applied in
the present case. This means competing analogical arguments capitalizing on authorities to
buttress their positions. Presiding Judges are not left of the hook. In delivering judgements,
employs the services of analogical argument. Such judgements typically start with identification
of what are taken to be relevant facts, followed by identification of what is taken to be the
relevant category of law. The issues in dispute within that area are identified, and relevant cases
and /or legislation cited. This at the end form the background to the precedent used by legal
counsels in support of future cases putting into consideration the conditions upon which
analogical argument is grounded to be strong.

From the moral viewpoint, analogical argument serves to dispel or affirm moral actions as either
bad or good. For instance, if it is wrong to do something in a situation A, and situation B is
analogous to A in all relevant respects, then it is also wrong to perform action in situation B.

3.4 Practice Exercises

1. What is argument by analogy? With concise illustrations, distinguish argument by analogy

from reasoning by analogy.

2. Carefully explain the relationship between Target-Subject (TS) and Assigned-Predicate (AP)
in order to make a good Analogue (A).
3. Identify the conditions for a correct and highly probable analogical argument.

4. In contemporary legal system, of what roles do you think analogical argument plays in
presentations of briefs in the law court?

Modules 4: Syllogism: Types of Syllogism, Enthymemes.

Introduction

In day –to –day social life, perhaps in legal proceedings, arguments are often placed in Complex
or extended form (Complex/ Extended argument) to showcase the interconnectivity of simple
arguments. Here, the conclusions of one or more such arguments become premises into such
complex arguments. Such conclusions, which are also premises, are called Intermediate
Conclusions, which are stages on the way to a final conclusion. Thus, complex chains and trees
of argument are developed, with different branches or tributaries feeding into or converging upon
a single final conclusion. That is why it is advisable to number the structure of complex and
lengthy extended arguments. This prompts our visit to the concept of syllogism to showcase the
relevant statements and draw out the logical relations between the relevant numbers. Along the
chain of arguments, intended conclusions and/or one or more of the premises might be
suppressed. We can apply what has been called a Principle of Charity, giving the arguer the
benefit of the doubt in supplying whatever missing statements are needed to make the argument
as strong as possible. This we shall expose in the course of the section

4.1 Syllogism and types of Syllogism

Syllogism resides within the deductively valid argument with its premises and conclusion. It is
structured in a formalistic inferential pattern to establish the logical link that exists along our
judgement, premises and the conclusion of the argument. However, there are two kinds of
syllogism for our discussion in argument: Categorical and Hypothetical syllgism.

4.1.1 Categorical Syllogism

This is a deductively valid argument comprising of three categorical statements featuring three
different terms within which each of the terms occurring twice in two different statements. Also,
each of the term is employed with the same meaning throughout the argument. The terms in the
schematic illustration are Major, Minor and Middle terms. The Major term in a categorical
argument is such that represents the predicate of the conclusion. The Minor term is the subject in
the conclusion. The Middle term in the syllogism that appears twice in the premises but not in
the conclusion. Symbolically

A = B

C = A

C = B

Minor = C; Major = B; Middle = A

A good example of Categorical syllogism thus:

i. P1 All Philosophers are Metaphysicians

P2 All Scientists are Philosophers

C All Scientists are Metaphysicians

ii. P1 All Lawyers are Legal thinkers

P2 All Judges are Lawyers

C All Judges are Legal thinkers

From above Categorical syllogistic illustrations, the Major terms in both i and ii are
Metaphysicians and Legal thinkers; the Minor terms are Scientists and Judges; while the middle
terms are Philosophers and Lawyers respectively.

4.1.2 Hypothetical Syllogism

Like Categorical syllogism, it is a chain conditional statement in which the consequent of the
first premise represents the antecedent of the second premise; while the conclusion is a
conditional statement in which the antecedent is the antecedent of the first premise and the
consequent is the consequent of the second premise. Symbolically thus:

P>Q
Q>R

P >R

Let us represent above in words thus:

P1.If Prof. Olatunji is the V/ Chancellor of OOU then Dapo Abiodun is the Governor of Ogun state

P2. If Dapo Abiodun is the Governor of Ogun State then Abeokuta is the State Capital

C. If Prof. Olatunji is the V/ Chancellor of OOU then Abeokuta is the State Capital

By and large, having explained the Categorical and Hypothetical Syllogistic inferences, we shall
next concentrate on the Former syllogism as a tool for the enthymematic syllogisms (arguments)
in which the unstated premise(s) and conclusion are determined.

4.2 Enthymemes

An Enthymeme is a form of argument with either premise(s) or the conclusion is unstated. In

resolving the unstated premise(s) or conclusion, we need to observe, first, that there are three
terms in the statement, comprising minor, major and middle terms. Secondly, the rules guiding
the categorical argument must be adhered to. Example of an enthymematic syllogism thus:

P Prof Jingo is a Pharmacist

C Prof. Jingo belongs to the sound mindsets

The unstated Premise is “A Pharmacist is of sound Mindset”

There are three major kinds of enthymematic syllogism: First Order Enthymeme, Second order
Enthymeme, and Third order Enthymeme.

4.2.1 First Order Enthymeme

It is that in which the Major premise in an argument is suppressed. For Example:

P1. ?

P2 All Learned are Barristers

C All Learned are logicians

The unstated premise (P1) is “All logicians are Barristers”

Hence, the full argument when clearly expresses becomes:

P1. All logicians are Barristers

P2. All Learned are Barristers

C All Learned are logicians

4.2.2 Second Order Enthymeme

In this argument, both the major premise and conclusion are stated but the minor premise is
suppressed.

P1. All OOUites are Republicans

P2 ?

C All Nigerians are Republicans

The unstated premise (P2) is “All Nigerians are OOUites”

4.2.3Third Order Enthymeme

It connotes an argument in which all premises are stated and the conclusion suppressed.

P1 All Professors are cerebral in nature

P2 Some Philosophers are Professors

C ?

In the above argument, the unstated conclusion is “Some Philosophers are cerebral in nature”

4.3 Practice Exercises

Supply the missing enthymematic syllogism and the justification for suppression in the following
arguments
1. Abortion takes the life of a foetus, hence abortion takes the life of a human being.

2. I am not a monotheist for the reason that I believe that there are many gods.

3. There is no human nature since there is no God to conceive of it.

4. John is older than Mary. Therefore, John is older than Joshua

5. All lawyers are university products. So, all members of the Nigerian Bar Association are
university products.

6. Death is nothing terrible, otherwise it would have appeared to Socrates.

7. This argument is complete, so this argument is incomplete.

8. Bolaji loves his fiancée. So he must be a wise husband.

9. Prof Jingo is a cheat, he should be tried by competent court.

10. All mammals are logicians, so all rational being are logicians

Module 5: Meaning and nature of Sophistical Refutation.

Introduction

This section aims at improving the quality of reasoning skill. It will at the end of study empower
you with the refutation ability against arguments paraded to be sound but are mere emotional in
nature.

5.1 Meaning of Sophistical Refutation

The last four topical issues have engaged us on the critical applications of logical reasoning in
Philosophical thinking. Now this section attempts to retort what are believed to be sound
arguments to make ordinary. Sophistical refutation is associated with Sophism of the latter
Ancient philosophical tradition who were a group of itenary scholars critical in nature to the
extent of questioning the foundations of traditional beliefs, traditional ways of life, institutions
and custom (Balogun, 1999). Thus they were concerned with deconstruction of knowledge which
reflected in their teaching and instruction in return for pecuniary gains. In short, they were
relativists with the denial of the possibility of man’s attainment of indubitable knowledge. In
modern day, they are the skeptists who seems to display illogicality in any foundational
knowledge of truth in order to present the latter as not only false but also score a mere point.

By and large, Sophistical refutation as the name denotes comprise a response with the intention
of making a sound argument ordinary. It attempts uplifting worse argument to a better one. In
short, it belongs to the family of fallacious arguments. The following examples will clarify the
role of sophistical refutation in understanding:

I. legal practitioners are fond of deploying the services of sophistical argument in arousing
emotions with a view to diverting attention to their sides against the matter at hand. For instance,
A defense counsel in a murder case with enormous evidence against his client whom the
judgement would not be in his favour would employ the tactic of sophistry to divert attention
with fallacious emotion such as “My lord, kindly temper justice with mercy on the ground that
my client is the sole winner of his family and the train of justice would not be in his favour and
his being taken away for a long time, as justice demand, may have multiplier effects on his
family with aged parents, brothers and sisters in high schools and children with unemployed
wives...”

2. Distinguished Senators and Honourable members of the National Assembly sometimes use the
tools of sophistical refutation to rigour themselves out of unsavoury position and argument. In
the attempt at brainstorming on enable legislation on disease control and related offences, it was
discovered that the House of Representatives engaged in wholesale plagiarism of seventeen
pages of the 1976 legislation on Disease Control of Philippines to complement Nigeria Covid-19
Pandemic statutory laws. In response by the Honourable Speaker, he affirmed that Plagiarism is
a common practice in modern day legislation hence Nigeria could after all not be exempted from
the norms. This is another form of sophistry in order exempt the House from the uncultured
practice of legislative plagiarism.

3. Another classical illustration in sophistical refutation is found in John 8:1-9. Jesus Christ was
queried by the Pharisees and Scribes on the reason why he should mingle with a notorious
adulterous woman at the Temple as against the law of Moses that such woman should be stoned
to death. However, Jesus responded that he that is without sin among the lawgiver should cast
the first stone at her and they all dispersed disappointed. From this illustration Jesus was able to
bail both the woman and himself out of the tight corner with sophistical refutation in his response
despite the fact that any adulterous woman, according to the Mosaic Law, ought to be stoned to
death. Hence this set the woman free and he also rigour himself out of the dilemma.

4. Another resounding example could be noted in a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees
on whether it is just to pay tax to the Roman government or not. One would have expected Jesus
to explicate on the justification or not to pay tax. Rather, he responded with a sophistical
refutation by requesting for the coin with the inscription of Caesar used in the payment of tax. He
asked them whose head and title were on it. They answered “the emperor’s” and he furthered
that “give therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are
God’s”. The response not only ridicules the Pharisees but also discharged him from committing a
rebellious crime against the government.

5. Sophistical refutation sometimes is used in addressing complex questions in the form of keep
silent or being emotional in the response. If somebody is asked “ have you stopped beating your
wife?” It placed the respondent in a tight corner of culpability of either yes or no.” A means of
disparaging or pooh-pooh such a questionable claims is to ask if the question could be redrawn in
such a manner that both the yes and no response would not engender further implications. Legal
counsels artistically deployed this tactic when in need of scoring further points in the legal
proceedings. (Balogun 1999)

To round off the section, we are able to see that Sophistical refutation is grounded in logical
pretence towards making a valid position look not only ridicules but also confusing other parties
the more.

5.2 Practice Exercise

1. What do you understand by Sophistical refutation?

2. Carefully attempt a refutation of the following arguments:

i. Boko Haram insurgence is against Islamic doctrines. Therefore, Nigerians should rise up to
condemn what it stands for.
ii. He who slaughters fellow human beings for pecuniary gains must be killed. Some urchins
were found with human parts. Therefore they should be killed.

iii. On the Sabbath, while Jesus was going through the grain fields, his disciples plucked some
grains, rubbed them in their hands and ate them. But some of the Pharisees asked “why are you
doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” If you are Jesus, what will be your sophistical
refutation?

iv. The mindset of Nigeria political class is merely to serve personal interest whenever elected to
public offices. So, the alternative in People Democratic Party (PDP) is merely to assume political
power rather than for public good.

v. The World is on the brink of collapse due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Hence alternative herbal
medicine known to Africans should be patronised in order to save the world.

Module 6: Evidence: Meaning of evidence, basis of evidence, cross-examination, and Logic

and the law

Introduction

The section will enrich your probing ability in the course of courtroom deliberation.

6.1: Meaning of Evidence

Whenever a crime is committed, investigators are invited with the aim of searching for evidence
to showcase the trace to the perpetrator. This information from the evidence can take many
forms. It might be the testimony of an eyewitness, a fragment of Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
(DNA) or a fingerprint, a fiber, some documents, or perhaps even a confession. In other words,
evidence denotes the source from which people gather information in respect to issues/ crime
under consideration. However, whatever forms it takes, evidence falls into one of two categories:
it is either direct or circumstantial. Although the law recognizes no distinction between direct
and circumstantial evidence, as the court gives equal recognition to the two, there is is an
important difference between them. This can be illustrated to know better the difference.
If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant deliberately and without provocation, fires a bullet
into the body of a person who then died, then this constitutes direct evidence of murder but with
the proviso that the witness is telling the truth. On the other hand, if the witness to the crime
testifies that he heard a shot and that when he arrived the crime scene seconds later he saw the
defendant standing over the corpse with a gun in his hand, this is circumstantial evidence
because other possibilities then exist. For instance, the person holding the gun might have been
shooting at the escaping killer; or he might have been an innocent bystander who just
happened to pick up the gun after the killer had dropped it and fled. This is what makes
circumstantial evidence so tricky and has led to the common misconception that someone cannot
be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

Much legal discussion and argument therefore revolve around issues of what actually happened
in the circumstances identified by prosecution or plaintiff, and involved inductive- logical
arguments supporting or refuting particular factual claims. This will include arguments relating
to eyewitness testimony and expert testimony. But nothing could be further from the truth; in
fact, the majority of convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. This is because most
criminals tend to commit their crimes away from the prying eyes of witnesses and not all are
obliging enough to leave evidence such as a fingerprint or DNA traces in their wake, which
although not direct evidence per se, are very strong indicators of someone’s presence at a crime
scene.

6.2: Basis of evidence

With that important clarification out of the way, it is necessary to next look at how evidence is
gathered.

Eyewitness evidence-

The most important aspect of any investigation is crime scene integrity. It is absolutely vital. But
most of the times we further have to assume that people tell truth. But what is the basis/ criteria
of determining the truth-telling of the eyewitness? The Factors to look for in this circumstantial
evidence for truth telling include:
  The moral character of the witness to a crime. One must be reasonable sure that the
witness is an honest person
 Beyond honesty, the motive for of the witness is vital. We have to ascertain what prompt
him/her to witness for or against the person on trial.
 The reliability of evidence goes a long way in this circumstance such as (1) Dream ; (2)
information from other sources such as ‘my brother told me that…’ (3) Memory which
could not go a long way without some distortion of evidence.

Hence these are inductive reasoning since we can never be absolutely certain of what really
happened. However, the conditions for acceptance of truth-telling include, among others:

 If any eyewitness claims to have seen certain things, then evidence that they are a truthful
and competent witness
 That they have no reason to lie in this case
 That they were indeed in a position to witness the events in question
 That they were unlikely to have misunderstood the significance of what they saw
 That they counts in favour of the likelihood that the events in question did indeed take
place

Expert evidence

Besides eye-witness account/evidence, experts will be called in to testify about the sorts of
events likely to have produced particular items including such material evidence as bloodstains,
tracks and DNA, as well as the nature and causation of injuries or illness (Including mental
illness) on the part of accused persons, their victims and plaintiffs. They will typically be called
upon to explain the evidence in question, by reference to some mechanism of causation. They
might, for example, explain the behaviour of the accused in terms of a particular
psychopathology, or the disease symptoms of the plaintiff in terms of exposure to a particular
toxin or pathogen. Hence the conditions that can make such authority credible include:

 The authority must not be dogmatic. The authority may be wrong and must be ready to
accept that there can be evidence that may prove the claim of the authority wrong.
 The authority must be credible. Experts called upon must be able to justify their
explanations by appropriate logical argument. Typically this means justifying the general
 principles involved in such explanation by reference to the scientific evidence in support
of such general principles.
 The authority must have a special competence in respect to the crime scene. They might
refer to clinical, epidemiological or laboratory evidence in support for their causal claims.
 The authority must be known by other authorities.
 Finally, the authority must be properly used in such a way that his opinion on a matter
should be taken credible at all time.

6.3 Logic and the law

It should be clear now that logic is relevant to law going by our discussion in the last sixth topics.
Let us now look at the roles it plays in day-to-day activities in the making and execution of law.

In a parliamentary setting, prior to their submission to parliament, proposals for particular bills
are discussed and debated within government circles. Relevant arguments and evidence are
considered. Interested outside bodies are often consulted. All aims at research with the support of
critical thinking to produce solid arguments in favour of particular changes to legislation and
case law. Further examples on the relevance of logic to law could be witnessed in the proposals
for Acts of parliament. Legislations have to pass through the assent of both houses. Arguments
for and against such proposed legislation are constructed, debated, modified and developed
throughout the process.

Logical argument is equally relevant to ideas and practices of due process in the day-to-day
operation of the common law system. In the criminal cases, the onus is upon the arresting
authority to provide the accused with justification of the charge in question. If the accused is
charged with an indictable offence, a preliminary hearing may be held before a magistrate. Here,
the court produces its evidence in order to establish that it has a plausible case against the
accused. The magistrate is called upon to decide a logical assessment of the strength of the case,
to decide whether the evidence is overwhelming enough, through the support of the Directorate
of public prosecution (DPP), the argument strong enough, to warrant putting the accused to trial.
In the civil case, the onus is upon the plaintiff ( or their representative) to persuade the court
(judge), through logical argument, that the facts they allege are true on a balance of probabilities,
and justify the issuing of a particular order of the court, spelling out they receive some sort of
compensation from the defendant. Meanwhile, the defendant tries to refute such claims with
logical presentations of their own.

By and large, the role of magistrate or judge is that of assessing the strength of the competing
arguments, for and against defendant or accused. This is sometimes said to be a largely passive
role. But it involves active construction of arguments to justify a particular verdict. Legal
counsels of either party will discuss and debate among themselves grounded on various statues,
legislations, and constitution before arriving at some agreed structure of argument, though they
are not required to provide public justification for their final conclusion. Rather judges are
expected to and justifying their conclusions. In particular, the principle of precedence grounded
in high probability in analogical arguments is deployed. Judges are expected to clearly identify
established general rules or principles applied, and the justification for such application in the
case in question.

6.4 Practice Exercise

1. In a few sentences, express your understanding by evidence.

2. What is the relationship between direct and circumstantial evidences?

3. Carefully explain the criteria for reliable evidence.

4. What factors do you think can make an authority credible in a law suit?

5. Carefully discuss the role of logical arguments in the practice of law.