Analogical Reasoning

Simply put, analogical reasoning is the process of comparative analysis. It is based on the premise that if
some things are similar in some respects, then they must also be similar in other respects.

Here’s a simple example:

1. Case No. 1 has the elements A, B, and C, and results in conclusion D.
2. Case No. 2 likewise has the elements A, B, and C, but with an unknown conclusion.
3. However, since Case No. 2 is similarly situated with Case No. 1, then, by applying analogical
reasoning, we can reasonably say that it will also have the same conclusion as Case No. 1.
4. Therefore, Case No. 2 likewise results in conclusion D.

Here’s a more concrete example:

1. Pedro drives a 2010 Ford sedan, which he has kept in a reasonable state of repair. However, Pedro
suffers from bad fuel economy.
2. Juan likewise drives a 2010 Ford sedan, which he has kept in a reasonable state of repair. Nothing
is said about his fuel economy.
3. However, because Juan drives the same type of car as Pedro and keeps that car in the same state
of repair, we can reasonably conclude that Juan also suffers from bad fuel economy.

The implications for law are obvious. “The rule of law x x x implies the precept that similar cases be treated
similarly. Men could not regulate their actions x x x if this precept were not followed” (Rawls, 1971, p. 53).
Thus, analogical reasoning is often employed when comparing an undecided case to the legal precedent.
By looking at similar jurisprudence, we can better guess how the undecided case should probably be
decided.

Most of us already perform analogical reasoning all the time. In the preparation of motions, pleadings or
other documents, we will often cite jurisprudence and indicate how that decided case is similar to ours in
order to convince the reader that the instant case deserves the same treatment.

However, analogical reasoning does not provide a bulletproof defense. One of the primary difficulties in
analogical reasoning was stated long ago by Plato, to wit, “Law can never issue an injunction binding on
all which really embodies what is best for each; it cannot prescribe with perfect accuracy what is good
and right for each member of the community at any one time x x x The variety of man’s activities and the
inevitable unsettlement attending all human experience make it impossible for any art whatsoever
to issue unqualified rules holding good on all questions at all times (Plato, 1961, p. 1063).”

In simpler terms, the law is often decided on a case-to-case basis. There is no “one size fits all” rule that
ALWAYS applies. In fact, even settled jurisprudence is sometimes properly overturned when the court is
convinced that the facts of the case merit a different ruling.

The problem with this inconsistency lies in the inherent limitations of analogical reasoning. The first
limitation deals with the weight or importance placed on similarities, especially since two objects can be
similar in a variety of ways. For example, a chair and laptop can be similar since they both weigh less than
100 kilograms and they can both be found in an office. Thus, without a common point of reference or
relevance, it will be impossible to apply analogical reasoning.

For example, two sets of luggage may be different in the opinion of a baggage handler since he needs to
take into consideration the size, design, color, and other distinguishing features of the luggage to do his
job. However, the same sets of luggage may be similar in the opinion of an airline pilot since they are both
within the weight limit for luggage that he can transport on the aircraft. Thus, despite being different sets
of luggage (objectively speaking), they may be considered similar, depending on the context of the
situation. This brings us back to the point we were trying to make. In order to assign weight or importance
to similarities, there must be a common point of reference or relevance.

Another inherent limitation is that the analysis of these similarities is often relate to only certain parts or
issues of the case. Some of these parts may be in favor of one party while some are in favor of the other.
These parts are then collectively assessed to determine an overall conclusion and, in doing so, the parts
may once again be weighed or assigned importance from a common point of reference.

This common point of reference is connected with the normative theory of law, which entails that the
common points of reference should be determined in light of the “spirit or purpose of the law.”

Thus, in applying analogical reasoning, due consideration must be given to both the so-called “dimension
of fit” and the “aesthetic constraint.”

“Dimension of fit” refers to how well the conclusion fits with legal precedent (i.e. how similar the case a
quo is to existing legal precedent), while “aesthetic constraint” refers to how well the conclusion will
appeal to normative theory (i.e. that it should be based on the principles of fairness, justice, equality or
due process). In practice, dimension of fit should be considered when comparing the similarities between
cases, while aesthetic constraint should be considered when assigning weight to these respective
similarities.

There is, however, some debate as to how the “spirit or purpose of the law” should be determined. Two
prominent schools of thought in this regard are those proposed by Ronald Dworkin and Lon Fuller.
Dworkin suggests that norms are determined by a judge’s theory of political morality (i.e. that a judge
employs his own convictions in deciding the purpose of the law, not because they are his “personal”
convictions, but because he believes these convictions to be the best that morality would require). On the
other hand, Fuller suggests that laws are already expressions of social aims and goals and, therefore, the
norms for a case are determined through inquiry as to the purpose or goal of the applicable law.

Whichever school of thought one prescribes to, however, the general idea and process of analogical
reasoning remains the same: if a pending case is sufficiently similar to decided case, then both cases
should be treated in the same way.