Legal Technique

Chapter 11:
Analogy and Probable
Inference
Princess Armillos
Waldetrudes Del Rosario
Rae Velasquez
Mikhail Fabio

Noun. Analogy
-An inference that if things agree in some
respects they probably agree in others.
-Drawing a comparison inorderto show a
similarity in some respect.

Adjective. Probable
-Having a high chance to be (or become) true or
real.
-The reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion
or making a logical judgment on the basis of
circumstantialevidence and prior conclusions
rather than on the basis of direct observation.

Noun. Inference
-The reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion
or making a logical judgment on the basis of

Analysis of Arguments
-are not claimed to demonstrate the
truth of their conclusions as
following necessarily from their
premises, but are intended merely
to support their conclusions as
probable, or probably true.
-arguments of this kind are
generally called Inductive, and they
are radically different from

*Of all inductive arguments there is one type that is

most commonly used: Argument by Analogy.

*Analogy is the basis of most of our ordinary

reasonings from past experience to what the future
will hold.

*But no Argument by Analogy is intended to be

mathematically certain. Analogical Arguments are
not to be classified as either valid or invalid.
*Analogies very often are used nanargumentatively for the purpose of lively
description.

*The Literary uses of analogy in metaphor and

Analogy is also used in Explanation.

The use of Analogies in Description

and Explanation is not the same as
their use in argument, though in some
cases it may not be easy to decide
which use is intended. But whether
used argumentatively or otherwise,
analogy is not difficult to define.

To draw an analogy between two or

more entities is to indicate one or more
respects in which they are similar.

Example:
My new computer will serve
me well because my old
computer, purchased from
the same manufacturer, gave
good services.

People Vs. Petralba (G.R. No. 81337

August 16, 1991)
Criminal liability does not only mean
obligation to serve the personal or
imprisonment penalties but it also includes
the liability to pay the fines or pecuniary
penalties. The pecuniary liability is
extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before the final judgment.
(Article 89, RPC). In the case at bar,
petitioner Richard V. Petralba died pending
appeal and before any final judgment
therein. Hence, the death of Richard V.

Analogical argument is one of

the most fundamental tools to
appellate courts. Rather than
laying down strict rules or
principles in advance, judges
very often reason that because
two casesan earlier one that
has been decided, and the case
at handshare relevant
characteristics, they should

People Vs. Petralba (G.R. No. 81337 August

16, 1991)
Though the death of an accused-appellant
during the pendency of an appeal extinguish
his criminal liability, his civil liability survives.
Extinction of criminal liability does not
necessarily mean that the civil liability is also
extinguished. In People Vs. Navoa, 132 SCRA
and People Vs. Sendaydiego,81 SCRA 120, We
ruled that the only criminal liability (including
the fine, which is pecuniary but not civil) of the
accused is extinguished by his death, but the
civil liability remains. The claim of the
government for the civil liability survives

Every analogical inference proceeds

from the similarity of two or more
things in one or more respects to
the similarity of those things in
some other respect.

Example:
A, B, C, D all have the attributes of
P and Q.
A, B, C all have the attributes of R.
Therefore D probably has the

Appraising Analogical
Arguments

No argument by analogy is
deductively valid, in the sense of
having its conclusion follows from
its premises with logical necessity,
but some analogical arguments
are more cogent than others.
Analogical arguments are
evaluated as better or worse
depending on the degree of
probability with which their
conclusions may be affirmed.

Criteria to distinguish the strength of the

Analogical Arguments:

1. Number of Entities.
In general, the larger the number of entitiesthat is,
cases in our past experiencethe stronger the argument.
Six happy experiences, intelligent and sweet tempered
with golden retrievers will lead to the conclusion that the
next golden retriever, will be intelligent also.

2. Variety of the instances in the premises.

The more dissimilar the instances mentioned only in the
premises of the analogical argument, the stronger the
argument.
If my previous golden retrievers were both males and
females, acquired both as puppies from breeders and as
adults from the humane society, I may be more confident

3. Number of Similar Respects.

The greater the number of respects in
which the entity in the conclusions is
similar to the entities in the premises,
the more probable is the conclusion.
Perhaps the dogs are of the same
breed came from the same breeder at
the same age and so on.

4. Relevance.
Respects add to the force of the argument when they
are relevant and a single highly relevant factor
contributes more to the argument than a host of
irrelevant similarities.

5. Disanalogies.
A disanalogy is a point of difference, a respect in which
the case we are reasoning about in our conclusion is
distinguishable from the cases upon which the
argument is based. It undermines analogical
arguments when the points of difference identified are
relevant and weakens the analogical argument.

6. Claim that the Conclusion makes.

In general, the more modest the claim the less burden
is placed upon the premises and the stronger the
argument, the bolder the claim the greater is the

An analogical argument is
strengthened by reducing the claim
made on the basis of the premises
affirmed, or by retaining the claim
unchanged while supporting it with
additional or more powerful premises.
Likewise, an analogical argument is
weakened if its conclusion is made
bolder while its premises remain
unchanged, or the claim remains
unchanged while the evidence in its
support is found to exhibit greater

Proposed Solution

A. More probable. Number of Similar

Respects. The change provides an additional
respect in which the instance in the conclusion
is the same as those in the premises.
B. More Probable. Number of Entities. With
this change the number of entities in the
premises is substantially increased.
C. More probable. Claim made by the
conclusion. With this change in the premises,
the conclusion, although unchanged, is now,
relatively speaking, substantially more modest.

D. More probable. Variety among the

premises. With this change , the dissimilarity
among the instances in the premises is clearly
established.
E. Less probable. Disanalogy. With this change
in the premises, a significant difference
between the instance in the conclusion and the
instances in the premises is introduced.
F. Neither. Relevance. It is unlikely that the
dividends paid by tabacco companies would
have any relevance to the profitability of oil
companies or the price of their shares.

Refutation by Logical Analogy

It is an effective method of refuting

both inductive or deductive
arguments. To show that a given
argument is mistaken, one may
present another obvious mistaken
argument that is very similar in the
form to the argument under attack.

In the realm of deduction, a

refuting analogy or a given
argument is an argument having
the same form as that of the given
argument but whose premises are
known to be true and whose
conclusion is known to be false.
The refuting analogy is therefore
known to be invalid and the
argument under attack, because it
has the same form, is thus shown

In the realm of inductive

argument, the technique of
refutation by logical analogy can
also be used to great effect.
Scientific, political or economic
arguments, not purporting to be
deductive, may be countered by
presenting other arguments
having similar designs, whose
conclusions are known to be false
or are generally believed to be

The presentation of a refutation by

logical analogy is often signalled, in the
inductive as in the deductive sphere, by
the appearance of some revealing
phrase.

When the point of the refuting analogy

is manifest, no introduction phrases
may be needed.