"FALLACY OF NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA"

What's the fallacy of NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA?

       *NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA' ?*

This question is laced with recondity but I'll attempt to answer it with simplicity but absolute firmness coupled with comprehension.

Sirs, this question cannot be merely answered without referencing its origin.

Aristotle postulated 13 kinds of FALLACIES under logic which at all material times a lawyer should/ought/must be familiar with.

However, I'll merely take just two with which non causa  pro causa  is the first and 'many questions'.

For clarity :

1. Non causa  pro causa  and,
2. Many Questions

NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA

This fallacy posits that or a situation whereby one assigns to a cause that which is patently not the cause.

I crave your indulgence to give an illustrative exposition/example thereon.

Mr. A was charged with the offence of murder that he killed Mr. B, Mr. B briefed Mr.C (a lawyer) to defend him.

After the close of the evidence of the prosecution, Mr.C rose up and said:

'My Lord, Mr. B is not guilty as charged because a day to the crime, he ate semovita prepared by his wife'.

Lo and behold ! Mr.C is suffering from this fallacy because he assigned a cause (eating semo  !) to what is not the cause(the murder of Mr. B).

All lawyers must therefore refrain from such !

2. The Fallacy of 'Many Questions'.

This fallacy lies in trying to answer at once a question which is pregnant with a YES / NO answer, capable of incriminating someone that intends to answer it.

I crave your indulgence to profer a quintessence of such a question ?

*Mr. Johnson, have you stopped beating your mum ?*

Answer this question using YES/NO !

That is where the fallacy lies.
Either answers in the negative or affirmative is suggestive of an incriminating conclusion.

YES means you do beat her before but you've stopped presenting you as a 'crook',

While NO means you perpetrate in such unholy act by still beating her.

*In any case, what are you supposed to do, as a lawyer ?*

Knowing the above implications first, let me remind you of two statements by Williams Shakespeare in 'Julius Caesar' :

(a). The fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves,

(b)Men at some time, are masters of their fates

Therefore, *_"you should object to the question before it is answered...a compound question must either be split and its components answered separately or be answered with a compound answer"_*

In other words, try not to answer it with a YES/NO and request the questioner to ask it simply by rephrasing it.

My dear friends, there is an imperative need for you all to learn, know and master the art of legal reasoning and approach to problem(s).

Conclusively, I try not to suffer from any of the fallacies discussed above.

That is my style and I vehemently recommend it to my noble friends here !

Thanks for your attention.

By; Balogun .O. Sofiyullahi, 500level Law student of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.