Substantial Reasoning By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif ©Copyright 2010 by Anthony J.

Fejfar Previously, I have discussed the Form-Substance distinction. Thus, as a matter of Form, a Tree is not a Bush. In fact, a Shrub is not a Bush. On the other hand, a Shrub is substantially the same as a Bush. Accordingly, using Syllogistic Logic, A is not B, and a Shrub is not a Bush. This is a logical distinction. On the other hand, it can be argued that a Bush is analogous to a Shrub. In fact, it can be argued that an orange is analogous to a grapefruit. Additionally, an apple : orange as banana : grapefruit. Moreover, we could say that while an orange is analogous to a grapefruit, an orange is not analogous to a banana, because, the first analogy involves citrus fruit, and, the second analogy only involves fruit, as such. Thus, it is argued that a banana is distinguishable from an orange. A counter-argument might be, that a banana is analogous to an orange, because they are both pieces of fruit. This is how legal reasoning functions for the most part. One lawyer may argue that Case B is analogous to Case A, while another lawyer argues that Case B is distinguishable from Case A because the analogy is not close enough. In fact, one lawyer might argue that Case A and Case B are analogous for Public Policy reasons. Therefore, we might see an argument that because Case B is analogous factually to Case A, then, following Case A, the rule of law applied in Case A should be applied in Case B.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.