Instructions: In the following example, the major premise presents a statement of law. The minor premise then applies that statement of law to the specific circumstances of a particular factual situation. Review the statements contained in both the major premise and the minor premise. If either or both statement(s) is inaccurate, then the conclusion that logically flows from the syllogistic application of the specific facts in the example to the general statement of law is also incorrect. Identify which premise statement is incorrect, and then re-write it correctly.
Consider the following logical syllogism about the Tort of Battery:
(1) Every Battery requires some physical contact with the person of another.
(2) Tom never physically touched Mary's person.
(3) Therefore, Tom did not commit a Battery on Mary.
On
its face, the conclusion deduced from this syllogism certainly appears
to be valid (i.e., this argument does not appear to violate any of the
Rules for constructing valid syllogisms). Moreover, when we examine both
premise statements, they too appear to be accurate statements of the law.
However, while both statements are indeed "accurate," they are
not complete statements. In this example, the major premise still leaves
a very significant legal question unanswered: "Exactly what constitutes
a physical contact with the person?" Stated somewhat differently,
"What is a person for purposes of the Tort of Battery?" We know
from even our limited study of the law of Battery, that the answer to
this question is not always what we might think. We recall that under
the so-called "extended personality rule," the person of another
can also include items of personalty (e.g., clothing, a purse, a hat,
a dinner plate held in the hand, etc.) that are in close physical contact
with the person of another. With this additional insight, we now realize
that the conclusion stated in our syllogism is NOT technically correct
under the law of Battery, even though it was logically derived.
The foregoing example illustrates the importance of carefully selecting each word that is used in the major and minor premise statements that comprise a legal argument. Even one undefined or ambiguous term in either statement of the syllogism can destroy the validity of an otherwise logically derived conclusion. This is one very important lesson that the traditional Socratic method of dialogue is uniquely designed to teach. As the student attempts to construct a valid legal syllogism on some point of law made by a particular case, the questioner repeatedly challenges the student's selection of each and every single term used in constructing both the major and the minor premises. In so doing, the student hopefully will refine the terms that are used in the syllogism, thereby making its conclusion a more valid statement of the law.
Rewrite the legal arguments in the preceding example, this time being more precise with the legal terminology that you use.
 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||