Presumptions of Fact

During the lecture on civil procedure, my curiosity aroused the concept of FACTUAL PRESUMAS. They are referred to in Article 231 of the PCC: “The Court may consider established facts relevant to the outcome of the case if such a request can be induceed from other established facts.” I was like, “HOW DO I KNOW WHEN YOU CAN AND WHEN YOU CAN’T MAKE SUCH A CONCLUSION?” This is what Mr Holmes did each time:
(a) he presented a HYPOTHETICAL situation and its assumptions
(b) compared those ASSUMPTIONS and the situation with a situation that was already partially known
(d) checked by reasoning which assumptions and elements of a hypothetical situation fit into a known situation.

What are the logical foundations of what Mr. Holmes did, explains L. Wittgenstein in one of the most brilliant works in human history – “Tractatus Logico-Filosophicus”:
T 2.011: “For things it is important that it can be a component of the state of affairs.”
T 2.012: “Nothing is random in logic. If a thing can happen, its possibility must already be a foregone conclusion.’
T. 2.0121: “It would look like a coincidence if something that might exist individually would then fit into a situation. If things can occur in states of affairs, then it must already be stuck in them (c.d. – comment).