Argument Without New Proof: Absence of a Cause and Presumption of Continuity

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• When can absence of a cause support absence of a ruling?
• What is the logical flaw in denying a whole ruling from one missing cause?
• Why is non-exit through the two passages not a complete proof about vomiting?
• What further premise is needed in the sibling-emancipation example?
• What does the case of the minor’s co-participant illustrate?
• What does the case of the father’s partner reveal?
• Which specific liability is at issue in the child-of-the-usurped-woman example?
• What is the relevant cause for retaliation in the withdrawn-testimony example?
• What must exist before istishab can apply?
• How should “fit for defense but not imposition” be understood?
• How does istishab work when the missing person’s estate is not immediately distributed?
• Why does istishab alone not establish a new inheritance for the missing person?
• Why are rejecting a slavery claim and imposing the free-person compensation different?
• How does prior habit matter when bleeding exceeds ten days?
• What limits istishab in the menstruation discussion?
• What is the proper inquiry in the ambergris and khums discussion?
• What is the danger in comparing ambergris to fish and fish to water?
• What does mere absence of discovered evidence NOT establish?
• Which pairing accurately distinguishes the two methods?
• Which determination about a missing person is defensive istishab?
• In which case is exclusivity of the legal cause especially important?
• What is the concluding principle concerning analogy?
• What distinguishes conserving the missing person’s estate from awarding him inheritance?
• What principle links the historical usurpation and retaliation cases?
• What is missing when istishab alone is used to impose a new financial claim?
• Which principle governs both forms of argument in the final chapter?
• Absence of one particular cause always negates every other possible ground of the ruling.
• Istishab can protect an existing right against an unproved change.
• Presumed continuity of a missing person’s life definitively establishes all new inheritances for him.
• Where a legal time limit governs menstruation, it takes priority over a general presumption of continuity.