CHAPTER 4  Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization)- when a person erroneously

creates a general rule from observing too few cases.

Inductive Reasoning in Law
 In Determining the sufficiency of the quantity of the sample, We should
1. Arguments in which the premises are intended to provide support, but not account for the quantity of the whole population.
conclusive evidence, for the conclusion.  QUESTION: Is the Sample Representative?
2. What is claimed in the conclusion goes beyond the evidence found in the  A sample is representative if there is diversity in our sample (Various Groups
premises. are represented in the selected respondents.
3. Do not claim that their conclusion is certain or that their premises guarantee  The Population we are dealing with is heterogenous
the truth of the conclusion.  Sufficient Relevant Diversity by making the sample random
4. Thei conclusion is likely, or probably true.  Random- is one in which all members of the target have an equal
opportunity to be in the sample
 The aim of creating the random sample is to ensure that the diversity of
Deductive Reasoning is not applicable in cases where there is no established law, the target is reflected by the sample
or binding precedent, or clear statute to provide the major premise of our legal  It will not be random if it excludes part of the target
argument.  Samples may also be biased when surveys require participants to initiate
contact rather than using a survey taker to actively solicit responses.
Draw from the Cumulative experience of the Judiciary  Random represents different sectors or groups of the whole population
Sufficient Case Law, formulate a General Norm that supports his claim.  A Good Inductive Argument should make a conclusion that is
appropriate to the evidence offered by its premises.
 The Conclusion should not claim more than its premises can support.
Inductive Generalization  Other Phrases that could soften the conclusion are possible, probably,
and likely
 type of inductive reasoning  Inductive Generalizations should not overstate their conclusions.
 an argument that relies on characteristics of a sample population to make a
claim about the population as a whole
 General Claim that makes a statement about all, most, or some members of a ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS
class, group, or set.
 Uses evidences about a limited number of people or things of a certain type to  Type of Inductive Argument
make general claim  Analogy- a comparison of things based on similarities those things share
 We find analogies everywhere
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations  There is no mathematical certainty in analogical arguments
 Whether the Inductive Generalizations are Strong or Weak  Analogical Arguments Depend upon Analogy or a similarity; they claim that
 QUESTION: Is the Sample Large Enough? another similarity exists given the similarities already recognized
 When it is clear we have not rushed to judgement, that we have not formed a  Analogy compares two or more things; point out similarity
hasty generalization.  ANALOGICAL REASONING IS VERY USEFUL IN LAW
 Based on Common Sense a. Deciding What rule of Law to Apply in a Particular Case
 b. In Settling Disputed Factual Questions
 The Current Case is compared to an older one and the outcome of the new
case is predicted on the basis of the other’s outcome.
 ANALOGICAL REASONING STEPS:
a. Establish Similarities between two cases
b. Announce the rule of law embedded in the first case
c. Apply the rule of law to the second case.
 Deduction- From Universal Principles to Smaller, specific Truths.
 Generalization- craft larger rules from a number of specific examples.
 Analogy- One-to-One Comparisons; No generalization or reliance on
universal rules; Particular to the Particular.
 Analogy- The Process of Drawing these comparisons and explaining why
they are important is the heart of reasoning by Analogy.
 IN SETLING DISPUTES: Was an Incorrect Diagnosis, and subsequent injury
to the patient, the result of the physician’s carelessness?
 ANALOGICAL REASONING IS ALSO THE BASIS OF WHAT WE
KNOW AS “CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION IF:
a. There is more than one circumstance
b. The Facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c. The Combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt

EVALUATION ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS

1. Fallacy of False Analogy- It Results from comparing two (or more) things that
are not really comparable
Criteria in Evaluating Analogical Arguments
1. Relevance of Similarities
2. Relevant Dissimilarities