A woman is told she cannot inherit from the family estate because she will marry into another family
This argument excludes a woman from inheritance by predicting a future consequence — that she will marry and assets will leave the family — and using that prediction as a present justification for denying her a right. It is logically flawed because a potential future event does not override a current legal entitlement. It also applies group reasoning to an individual: not all women marry, not all marriages result in asset transfer, and in any case, male heirs also transfer assets through various means.
They say: 'In our culture the son inherits everything — this has always been the custom.' You respond by: Acknowledging the cultural practice, then citing the Reform of Customary Law of Succession Act and the Constitutional equality provision that changed this rule.
After you give your response, they may push back. Here is how to handle each counter-argument.