Well, and this is Tina Seals speaking, I say: the theories look something like this as it relates to the law...If you have elements that satisfy the burden of proof, whether civil or criminal, then (under conditional theory) you have proved your burden.
If under contrapositive - which automatically negates the previous - states that you lack - sufficient elements then you by course, or as a result lack proof of burden, whether civil or criminal.
The biconditional theory then would assert - if you have elements to satisfy burden of proof, whether civil or criminal - then and only then - have you met the test of your burden - and therefore - by default you have proved your burden.
And lastly, the Converse and Inverse which state, respectively, (Converse) if you have circumstantial evidence of injury, whether civil or criminal - therefore - by assumption - you have satisfied burden of proof - whether criminal or civil - but I disagree with this theory and I say that this theory is the cause for many people doing hard time, over crowding and false convictions because most folk, who fall into the system, circumstantially, do not know the language of the court or have adequate finances to prove burden.
Inverse on the other hand suggests - that if you do not have elements - you cannot satisfy burden of proof. It is the same thing as placing a -sign on an number. -1-1=0 so that is to say if I lack - the elements that are required to have a favored judgment then I also lack the ability to prove that burden whether criminal or civil.
Sophia's online courses not only save you money, but credits are also eligible for transfer to over 2,000 colleges and universities.*