SUMMARY OF ANALOGICAL $LEGAL$ MORAL REASONING

Analogical Reasoning

Comparing two similar objects, processes, concepts, or events and suggesting that what holds true for
one also holds true for the other.

Comparison of instances, if they are sufficiently similar, the decision is usually a good one. BUT if they
are not sufficiently similar then the decision in the end may not be good.

1. For an analogy to be an argument and not just a comparison, a speaker must state a premise and a
conclusion.

Comparison of premises must be connected for argument to be strong. Otherwise if they are not
connected in some way, the argument is weak.

Example:

Adele's first two CDs were amazing, so I argue that her third album must be also amazing.

Primary analogue: Adele's first two CDs

Secondary analogue: Adele's second CD.

1. RELEVANCE of the similarities shared between primary and secondary analogues.

Either RELEVANT or IRRELEVANT.

2. The NUMBER of Similarities:

The higher the number of similarities in the comparison increases the strength of the argument.

3. Nature AND Degree of DISANALOGY:

Discrepancies between primary & secondary comparison.

For example: TOM & LUCY Example of Chevrolet for Gas Mileage.

4. Number of Primary Analogues:

The higher the number of analogues, e.g. Adele's 5 last albums were good, so there is a stronger
argument that the 6th album may be good as opposed to two previous albums and the chances of a
good album is lower compared to the previous example.

5. Diversity among the Primary Analogues:

Diverse factors contributing to same outcome of primary analogues, proves a higher connection or
higher chance that the second analogue will achieve such outcome.
If the primary analogues have a different method of being obtained. For example, good gas mileage
comparing 5 people; if they all use the same procedures, like one gas station, same mechanic, same
road conditions, etc. The factors may be same. However if they all have diverse factors contributing to
one same outcome the argument becomes stronger.

If Lucy has more friends that drive the same car as Tom's Chevrolet, and gets good gas mileage then
Lucy's chances of getting good mileage is higher and therefore strengthens the argument.

6. Specificity of the Conclusion:

The more specific the conclusion, the weaker the argument.

E.g., if Lucy's car does not get the "good" mileage as Tom's, and if it is 0.01 mpg behind, the argument
becomes redundant.

Legal Reasoning

This type of reasoning relies on analogical reasoning in the legal system because of PRECEDENTS, so that
if the primary case is similar to the second, then similar decision will be made, based on precedent. As to
the legal requirement of precedents, similar decisions must be made.

Lawyers in arguing cases, will use analogical reasoning the most to prove similarity to a earlier precedent
or case.

The FOURTH Principle: Number of Primary Analogues, can decide how well the legal precedent can work
and give the same outcome from the case precedents. Ex. if there is 50 case precedents that had the
similar outcome, then there is a higher chance of the 51st case having the same outcome.

Basically, the higher the number of primary analogues, in this case, legal case precedents, the stronger
the outcome and precedent is. 50 is better than 5.

Fifth Principle also applies (Diversity of Primary Analogues): If precedent rule is used in diverse cases,
with different situations, the better chances you will have the court following the rule of precedent. The
more diverse precedent cases are, the stronger the precedent because the rule can be used in a variety
of cases rather than a narrow range of cases.

The sixth principle (the more specific the conclusion, the weaker it is.)

Ex, case settlement should be exactly 1MM as recent case precedent is weak, compared to
"approximately, or roughly the amount of !MM" has a stronger argument. See pg 514, for 'Doctor left
Stethoscope in body example'

In law, primary analogues are usually not given EQUAL WEIGHT. For example, two precedents

are different, but similar in use of rule, do not carry the same weight as in conventional everyday logic
such as comparing cars.
MORAL REASONING

the thinking process involved in deciding whether an act is right or wrong.

Moral reasoning is used in CASES OF FIRST IMPRESSIONS, where there are no legal precedents available
to support the case. If there are primary analogues, it is encouraged to be used to further strengthen the
argument, alongside Moral Reasoning.

In such cases, this type of reasoning is used when there are no clear precedent. This such process
includes tons of arguments, and counterarguments proving analogy, disanalogy.

USEFUL in deciding moral questions.

This type of reasoning relies heavily on primary analogues to support secondary analogues. There is also
heavy use of analogies and disanalogies and arguments and counter arguments to disprove the
opponents side claim.

However, most of the time in such analogies, it is never called into question of its nature & degree of
disanalogy, since it is theoretical, and there are no precedent to rely on, so it is usually never challenged
and accepted in court.