You are on page 1of 32

Aiza A.


 It

is the most common and fundamental of all rational processes.  It is a reasoning that depends on a comparison of instances. Example: Entity A has attributes a, b, c and z. Entity B has attributes a, b, c. Therefore, entity B has attribute z also.

 The arguer

begins with one or more instances and proceeds to draw a conclusion about all the members of a class. Example: A thinks that J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone book is entertaining, and may argue that all of J.K. Rowling’s books were entertaining.

.  The arguer proceeds directly from one or more individual instances to a conclusion about another individual instance without appealing to any intermediate generalization. Rowling’s books thought that the first novel is the most entertaining. Example: A whom read all of J.K. Are closely related to Generalizations.

 It has two parts: the PRIMARY and SECONDARY. The items that are being compared in any argument from analogy. .

 If one should argue that Parokya ni Edgar’s latest album is good. Because the previous two albums were good. The 2 albums were the Primary Analogues while the latest album is the Secondary Analogue. .

 Relevance of similarities  Number of similarities  Nature and degree of disanalogy  Number of primary analogues  Diversity among the primary analogues  Specificity of the conclusion .

 Suppose a girl named Tina wants to purchase a new car. she argues that both cars have elegant upholstery. black paint. But if Tina bases her conclusion that both cars have the same size of engine. and tinted windows. . and her friend Mario’s new Chevy gets a good gas mileage.  To support Tina’s argument. it would be strong since the car engine is relevant to gas mileage. This argument is weak because it is irrelevant to gas mileage. She wants a Chevrolet because she wants a good gas mileage car.

. These additional similarities were relevant to gas mileage. aerodynamic body. Tina notes further similarities between the car she intends to buy and Mario’s car: curb weight. and tires. which tends to strengthen Tina’s argument. In addition to same-size engine. gear ratio.

then Tina’s argument will be weakened. if Mario’s car is overdrive and Tina’s does not. and loves to do jackrabbit starts and screeching stops. .  The said differences were called Disanalogies. if Tina’s car is equipped with a turbocharger. However.

it can either weaken or strengthen an argument. . These are the differences found in an argument. and depending on how it relate to conclusion.

These additional Primary Analogues strengthen the argument of Tina and it shows that Mario’s good gas mileage is not only incidental. . and all of them drive cars of the same model and year as Mario’s. Thus far. and all of them get good gas mileage. Tina has three other friends. Tina has based her conclusion on the similarity between the car she intends to buy and only one other car – Mario’s.  Suppose.

. This third case is called Counteranalogy. suppose that two of these friends get the same good gas mileage as Mario’s but the other one is not. The first two cases tends to strengthen Tina’s argument but the third one tends to weaken it. On the other hand.

 It supports a conclusion opposed to the original analogy. .

. Suppose all of Tina’s friends get good mileage. all of them buy their gas in same station. and inflate their tires with the same pressure. These factors may tend to reduce Tina’s conclusion because it is possible that one or a combination of them is responsible for good mileage and this factor may be absent in Tina’s case. have same mechanic to check it regularly.

 On the other hand. then it is less likely that the good gas mileage they enjoy is attributable to any factor other than the model and year of their car. if Tina’s friends buy their gas in different stations. have different mechanics to check it regularly and inflate their tires with different pressures. .

. If she changes her conclusion to state that her car will get gas mileage “at least as good” as Mario’s. if her mileage were only one-tenth of a mile per gallon less than Mario’s. her conclusion would turn out to be false. Thus. Tina’s conclusion is simply that her car will get “good” mileage. Such conclusion is more specific than the earlier conclusion and is easier to falsify. then her argument is weakened.

Gian Aquino .

 Many of the arguments used by lawyers in the United States and Canada to support a case at trial are analogical arguments. . The reason is that the legal system of these countries were derived many years ago from the English system.

According to the requirement of precedent. a lawyer will often attempt to show that the case is analogous to some earlier case that was decided in a favorable way. similar cases must be decided similarly. An essential feature of the English system is its dependence on precedent. . Thus in arguing a case.

and precedent is required to determine how the statutes should be interpreted and applied.  Statutory . However. many of our laws today are not the direct product of judges but rather of legislature. called statutes. laws are invariably phrased in relatively general language. These laws. are codified in books that are periodically revised.

After some negotiations they agreed on the construction of the windmill for a consideration of P60. T.000.00.00 and an installment payment of P15. .Facts:  Sometime in April 1987 petitioner Jacinto M. to construct a windmill system for him.00. Engineering and General Merchandising proposed to respondent Vicente Herce Jr. of the project.000. Tanguilig doing business under the name and style J. Pursuant to the agreement respondent paid petitioner a down payment of P30. M. leaving a balance of P15.00 with a one-year guaranty from the date of completion and acceptance by respondent Herce Jr.000.000.

According to respondent.00. petitioner filed a complaint to collect the amount. In his Answer before the trial court respondent denied the claim saying that he had already paid this amount to the San Pedro General Merchandising Inc. On 14 March 1988. Moreover.000. due to the refusal and failure of respondent to pay the balance. since the deep well formed part of the system the payment he tendered to SPGMI should be credited to his account by petitioner. this should be offset by the defects in the windmill system which caused the structure to collapse after a strong wind hit their place . (SPGMI) which constructed the deep well to which the windmill system was to be connected. assuming that he owed petitioner a balance of P15.

. was valid and.Issues:  Whether the payment made by respondent Herce Jr. secondly. whether petitioner is under obligation to reconstruct the windmill after it collapsed.

If SPGMI was really commissioned by petitioner to construct the deep well. It does not appear from the record Pili and/or SPGMI was so particularly to this effect should have been entered into." The Civil Code provisions do not apply in the instant case because no creditor-debtor relationship between petitioner and Guillermo Pili and/or SPGMI has been established regarding the construction of the deep well. witness Pili did not testify that he entered into a contract with petitioner for the construction of respondent's deep well. an agreement particularly to this effect should have been entered into. Specifically. While the law is clear that “payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted. or any person authorized. or his successor in interest. Respondent cannot claim the benefit of the law concerning "payments made by a third person.”.  .

. In a long line of cases this Court has consistently held that in order for a party to claim exemption from liability by reason of fortuitous event under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code the event should be the sole and proximate cause of the loss or destruction of the object of the contract. four (4) requisites must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor. (b) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable. (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. In Nakpil vs. and. Court of Appeals. (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in or aggravation of the injury to the creditor. The second issue is not a novel one.

Interestingly. Petitioner failed to show that the collapse of the windmill was due solely to a fortuitous event.unforeseeable nor unavoidable. Petitioner merely stated that there was a "strong wind. . On the contrary. the evidence does not disclose that there was actually a typhoon on the day the windmill collapsed. otherwise the windmills will not turn." But a strong wind in this case cannot be fortuitous . a strong wind should be present in places where windmills are constructed.

and the attempt to deal with them by appeal to analogous instances involves even more creativity than does the attempt to deal with ordinary cases. . Such cases are called of first impression. judges often resort to moral reasoning. In deciding such cases. Sometimes lawyers and judges are confronted with cases for which there is no clear precedent.

. New perspective are created. attitudes are changed. and world views are altered.

Victor Lawrence Babida .

. Such arguments often occur in the context of a dialogue. Arguments from analogy are also useful in deciding moral questions.

ogy and counteranalogy. identify the disanalogies associated with each analogy or counteranalogy and evaluate their effectiveness in destroying the original analogy.First. Add any additional similarities you can think of. identify the primary and secondary analogues in each anal. consider the similarities between the primary and secondary analogues and note their relevance to the conclusion. Finally. . Next.