{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Lecture 6 s 10 analogy

# Lecture 6 s 10 analogy - ANALOGY LEGAL REASONING Analogical...

This preview shows pages 1–11. Sign up to view the full content.

ANALOGY & LEGAL REASONING Analogical reasoning Perhaps the most fundamental and common of all rational processes Depends on a comparison of instances. Basic Form : Entity A has attributs a , b , c and z . Entity B has attributes a , b , c . Therefore entity B probably has attribute z , too

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
STRENGTH Analogical arguments are inductive . If a, b and c are relevant to z, (=connected in some important way) the argument is strong ; if not, the argument s weak .
GENERALIZATIONS Analogies are related but not equivalent to generalizations Basic form of a generalization - Step 1 (inductive): A large, representative sample of a's have attribute z. Therefore all a's must have attribute z. Step 2 (deductive): This individual is an a. Therefore this individual must have attribute z.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
INSTANCE TO INSTANCE Analogies do not appeal to an intermediate generalization i.e., there is no deductive moment. Analogies move directly from one or more individual instances to a conclusion about another instance.
ANALOGUES The items compared are called analogues . We are trying to draw a conclusion about B based on its similarities to A (i.e., we start with A and go to B ) The entity A is called the primary analogue . The entity B is called the secondary analogue . There may be any number of primary analogues.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
EVALUATING ANALOGIES 6 principles for judging the strength of analogies: Relevance of similarities between analogues Number of similarities Nature and degree of disanalogies Number of primary analogues Diversity among primary analogues Specificity of conclusion
1. RELEVANCE OF SIMILARITIES The argument is strong if the similarities to which the arguer points are relevant . Drawing a conclusion car B will have the same gas milage as car A based on the facts that: weak They have the same color upholstery and the same sound system strong They have the same engine and the same weight.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
2. NUMBER OF SIMILARITIES The greater the number of similarities between A and B, the stronger the argument. The car not only has the same engine and is the same weight, but also the same gear ratio, tires, body . . .
3. DEGREE/NATURE of DISANALOGIES Differences between the analogues are called Disanalogies . If the conclusion is that the analogues are alike in some way, relevant disanalogies weaken the argument; if the conclusion is that the analogues are different , they strengthen the argument. An additional analogue that supports a conclusion opposite the conclusion drawn is called a counteranalogy.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
4. NUMBER OF PRIMARY ANALOGUES The greater the number of primary analogues, the stronger the argument.
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

### Page1 / 37

Lecture 6 s 10 analogy - ANALOGY LEGAL REASONING Analogical...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 11. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online