You are on page 1of 14

EVALUATING ANALOGICAL

ARGUMENTS:

HOW CAN WE DETERMINE IF AN


ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT IS
GOOD?
CRITERIA:

1) RELEVANCE OF SIMILARITIES:
EXAMPLE:
Arizona signed into law the toughest bill on illegal
immigration in generations, making the failure to
carry immigration documents a crime.
We can expect that New Mexico will soon pass a
similar law.
After all New Mexico is a lot like Arizona, given
that both have a large population of immigrants,
and both are bordered by Mexico.
We identified two ways in which
New Mexico and Arizona are
similar.
1) that both have a large
population of immigrants .
2)both are bordered by Mexico
EXAMPLE:
Case 1: Roger stole Sonnys bicycle
and sold it to Cesar who knows
that it had been stolen.
Sonny sued Cesar to recover
the bicycle. Sonny won the case.
Case 2.Giovanni bought Mikes bicycle
giving as payment counterfeit money.
Giovanni knew it was a phony
money.
Mike discovered the fraud and sued
Giovanni for the return of the bicycle.
Mike won the case.
The relevance of similarities in the
given two cases is that 2 persons
being sued both dishonestly
acquired possession of anothers
property.
2. RELAVANT DISSIMILARITIES
BETWEEN THE ENTITIES BEING
COMPARED
EXAMPLE 1:
President Clintons action are not just
about sex but constitute obstruction
of justice just as former President
Nixons action were.
Both lied about their conduct in trying
to cover up an improper conduct, and
Clinton even did it under oath.
If Nixons actions were impeachable,
Clintons should also be.
the relevant difference that exists
between the entities compared is
that, Nixons lies were made in an
attempt to cover up a criminal
action, break-ins, destruction of
property and other acts related to
abuses of presidential power or
abuses of the presidential office,
Whereas, Clintons actions are
related to consensual sex, were not
an abuse of presidential power,
and everyone lies about sex, so
that his acts did not rise to an
impeachable offense.
EXAMPLE 2:
Case 3: Suppose Giovanni obtained the
bicycle by fraud, misrepresenting some
important facts that induced Mike to
transfer the title of the item. But before
Mike can sue to recover the bicycle,
Giovanni sold it to Mervin who did not
know of Giovannis fraud, and Mervin paid
Giovanni the market value of the bicycle.
Mike sued Mervin for the return of his
property.
The present case has relevant difference
from the previous case ( case 2). In the
previous case, the legal battle is between
the innocent owner and the wrongdoer.
But in the present case, the battle is
between two innocent persons- it is
between the innocent owner and the
innocent buyer. That is the relevant
difference that can justify the buyers
ownership of the bicycle.
Case 4: Suppose that Roger stole
Sonnys bicycle, and before Sonny
can sue Roger for its return, Roger
sold it to Cesar and he was
unaware that it was stolen and
paid Roger its full market value.
Sonny sued to recover the bicycle.
WHAT RELEVANT DIFFERENCE DO
CASES 3 AND 4 HAVE
The relevant difference was how the bicycle was
acquired from the original owner. In case number
3, Giovanni obtained the bicycle by FRAUD and in
case number 4 Rogers stole the bicycle.
Another relevant difference is that in case
number 4, sonny the original owner of the bicycle
was never intended to transfer the title to Roger.
In the case number 3, Mike did intend and act to
transfer the title