Analogical Reasoning.pptx

7/29/2019 Analogical Reasoning.pptx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/analogical-reasoningpptx 1/32

Aiza A. Tarca



It is the most common and fundamental of all rational processes.

It is a reasoning that depends on acomparison 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 moreinstances and proceeds to draw a conclusionabout all the members of a class.Example: A thinks that J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potterand the Sorcerer’s Stone book is

entertaining, and may argue that all of J.K.Rowling’s books were entertaining.



Are closely related to Generalizations.The arguer proceeds directly from one or

more individual instances to a conclusion

about another individual instance withoutappealing to any intermediategeneralization.Example: A whom read all of J.K. Rowling’s booksthought that the first novel is the mostentertaining.



The items that are being compared in any argument from analogy.

It has two parts: the PRIMARY andSECONDARY.



If one should arguethat Parokya ni Edgar’slatest album is good.

Because the previoustwo albums were good.The 2 albums were thePrimary Analogues

while the latest albumis the Secondary Analogue.



Relevance of similaritiesNumber of similaritiesNature and degree of disanalogy Number of primary analoguesDiversity among the primary analoguesSpecificity of the conclusion



Suppose a girl named Tina wants to purchase anew car. She wants a Chevrolet because she wants a good gas mileage car, and her friendMario’s new Chevy gets a good gas mileage.

To support Tina’s argument, she argues thatboth cars have elegant upholstery, black paint,and tinted windows. This argument is weakbecause it is irrelevant to gas mileage. But if

Tina bases her conclusion that both cars havethe same size of engine, it would be strongsince the car engine is relevant to gas mileage.



In addition to same-size engine, Tina notesfurther similarities between the car sheintends to buy and Mario’s car: curb weight,aerodynamic body, gear ratio, and tires.These additional similarities were relevantto gas mileage, which tends to strengthen

Tina’s argument.



However, if Tina’s car is equipped with aturbocharger, and loves to do jackrabbitstarts and screeching stops, if Mario’s car isoverdrive and Tina’s does not, then Tina’sargument will be weakened.

The said differences were called

Disanalogies.



These are the differences found in anargument, and depending on how it relateto conclusion, it can either weaken orstrengthen an argument.



Thus far, Tina has based her conclusion onthe similarity between the car she intends tobuy and only one other car – Mario’s.

Suppose, Tina has three other friends, andall of them drive cars of the same model and year as Mario’s, and all of them get good gasmileage. These additional Primary Analogues strengthen the argument of Tinaand it shows that Mario’s good gas mileageis not only incidental.



On the other hand, suppose that two of these friends get the same good gas mileageas Mario’s but the other one is not. The firsttwo cases tends to strengthen Tina’sargument but the third one tends to weakenit. This third case is called Counteranalogy.



It supports a conclusion opposed to theoriginal analogy.



Suppose all of Tina’s friends get goodmileage, all of them buy their gas in samestation, have same mechanic to check itregularly, and inflate their tires with thesame pressure. These factors may tend toreduce Tina’s conclusion because it is

possible that one or a combination of themis responsible for good mileage and thisfactor may be absent in Tina’s case.



On the other hand, if Tina’s friends buy their gas in different stations, have differentmechanics to check it regularly and inflatetheir tires with different pressures, then it isless likely that the good gas mileage they enjoy is attributable to any factor other than

the model and year of their car.



Tina’s conclusion is simply that her car willget “good” mileage. If she changes herconclusion to state that her car will get gas

mileage “at least as good” as Mario’s, thenher argument is weakened. Such conclusionis more specific than the earlier conclusionand is easier to falsify. Thus, if her mileage were only one-tenth of a mile per gallon lessthan Mario’s, her conclusion would turn outto be false.



Gian Aquino



Many of the arguments used by lawyers in

the United States and Canada to support acase at trial are analogical arguments. Thereason is that the legal system of thesecountries were derived many years ago from

the English system.



An essential feature of the English system is

its dependence on precedent. According tothe requirement of precedent, similar casesmust be decided similarly. Thus in arguing acase, a lawyer will often attempt to show

that the case is analogous to some earliercase that was decided in a favorable way.



However, many of our laws today are not thedirect product of judges but rather of legislature. These laws, called statutes, are

codified in books that are periodically revised.

Statutory laws are invariably phrased inrelatively general language, and precedent isrequired to determine how the statutesshould be interpreted and applied.



Facts: Sometime in April 1987 petitioner Jacinto M. Tanguilig doing

business under the name and style J. M. T. Engineering andGeneral Merchandising proposed to respondent Vicente Herce

Jr. to construct a windmill system for him. After somenegotiations they agreed on the construction of the windmill fora consideration of P60,000.00 with a one-year guaranty from thedate of completion and acceptance by respondent Herce Jr. of the project. Pursuant to the agreement respondent paid

petitioner a down payment of P30,000.00 and an installmentpayment of P15,000.00, leaving a balance of P15,000.00.



On 14 March 1988, due to the refusal and failure of

respondent to pay the balance, petitioner filed a

complaint to collect the amount. In his Answer beforethe trial court respondent denied the claim saying thathe had already paid this amount to the San PedroGeneral Merchandising Inc. (SPGMI) which constructed

the deep well to which the windmill system was to beconnected. According to respondent, since the deep wellformed part of the system the payment he tendered toSPGMI should be credited to his account by

petitioner. Moreover, assuming that he owed petitionera balance of P15,000.00, this should be offset by thedefects in the windmill system which caused thestructure to collapse after a strong wind hit their place



Issues: Whether the payment made by respondent

Herce Jr. was valid and, secondly , whether

petitioner is under obligation to reconstructthe windmill after it collapsed.



While the law is clear that “payment shall be made to the personin whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or hissuccessor in interest, or any person authorized,”. It does not

appear from the record Pili and/or SPGMI was so particularly tothis effect should have been entered into.

Respondent cannot claim the benefit of the law concerning"payments made by a third person." The Civil Code provisions do

not apply in the instant case because no creditor-debtorrelationship between petitioner and Guillermo Pili and/orSPGMI has been established regarding the construction of thedeep well. Specifically, witness Pili did not testify that heentered into a contract with petitioner for the construction of respondent's deep well. If SPGMI was really commissioned by petitioner to construct the deep well, an agreement particularly to this effect should have been entered into.



The second issue is not a novel one. In a long line of cases thisCourt has consistently held that in order for a party to claimexemption 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. In Nakpil vs. Court of Appeals, four (4) requisitesmust concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation mustbe independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must beeither unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such

as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation ina normal manner; and, (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.



Petitioner failed to show that the collapse of the

windmill was due solely to a fortuitousevent. Interestingly, the evidence does not disclose

that there was actually a typhoon on the day the windmill collapsed. Petitioner merely stated thatthere was a "strong wind." But a strong wind in thiscase cannot be fortuitous - unforeseeable nor

unavoidable. On the contrary, a strong wind shouldbe present in places where windmills areconstructed, otherwise the windmills will not turn.



Sometimes lawyers and judges are

confronted with cases for which there is no

clear precedent. Such cases are called of firstimpression, and the attempt to deal withthem by appeal to analogous instancesinvolves even more creativity than does the

attempt to deal with ordinary cases. Indeciding such cases, judges often resort tomoral reasoning.



New perspective are created, attitudes are

changed, and world views are altered.



Victor Lawrence Babida



Arguments from analogy are also useful indeciding moral questions. Such argumentsoften occur in the context of a dialogue.



First, identify the primary and secondary analogues in each analogy and counteranalogy.Next, consider the similarities between the

primary and secondary analogues and note theirrelevance to the conclusion. Add any additionalsimilarities you can think of. Finally, identify the

disanalogies associated with each analogy orcounteranalogy and evaluate their effectivenessin destroying the original analogy.

Documents

Analogical Reasoning.pptx