There is also a demand that may contain several requests from both the author and the defendant. They applied the same reasoning. Connect with other leaders such as Carl Jung here. The judges use the term “action based in part” by accepting only any of the claims, dismissed as others just seems unfair in light of the whole. Therefore, forensic and normal expression that also involves the elimination of non-Aristotelian logic. Politics in the opposite occurs with the indiscriminate application of Aristotelian logic.
You can generate some gross errors. 1 = premise of democracy is the government of the representation obtained by the free choice of the majority, 2 = premise that most people choose the representation is poor, the poor end = more representative elected to government posts . Both assumptions are very true. Why, then, the logical conclusion is not? But if, on the one hand, formal logic suitable for legal discourse, but, finding no other political activity in the right direction. Few poor people in position to compete for elective office, which is a serious defect of representative democracy, while in the law, with the improvement of procedural techniques, improved daily access of the poor the judiciary, especially with the guarantee of right of action, established as a fundamental principle of law in the State Constitution. In fact, you can not find logical deductions in a traditional form of security to ensure democracy in the knowledge of political and administrative justice. Take this example: One is a poor country and B is a rich country, which has the money borrowed from B, to eradicate poverty; B plays borrowed capital plus interest; conclusion, eradication of poverty.