2. Argument of some legal application.

Analogical reasoning may also be used to

show similarities that if the law applies to one area, it may be understood to apply to
other similar areas. In a case that attempts to impose damages on the seller of
immovable or real property for failing to disclose a major defect of the property, the
lawyer might argue that the law has imposed such duty on seller of personal property
as well. He might argue that rule for real and properties are the same.
a. Mutatis mutandis is an example of argument using the same legal application.
This happens when one compares multiple situations having multiple variables where
some variables remains constant, while others are allowed to be changed. For
example, the injunction in the Ten Commandments Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbors wife will apply mutatis mutandis to thy neighbors husband as well.
Article 111 of the Law of the Sea states: the right of hot pursuit shall apply
mutatis mutandis to violation in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental
shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf, including safety zones around
continental shelf installation, of the laws and regulation of the coastal State applicable
in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental
shelf, including such safety zones.
3. Argument using common sense analogy. Analogical argument may be used by
starting with something that everyone accepts.
Examples:
A person might argue that death penalty must be restored because the body of
the society is just like the body of a person. If man has severe tooth ache, the logical
way is to extract the tooth. A heinous criminal is just like the bad tooth.
b. Counter-analogical reasoning
Counter-analogical reasoning is the opposite of analogical reasoning.
While the latter concludes by pointing out the similarities, counter-analogical reasoning
concludes by pointing out relevant differences between the case and the clients facts.
Counter-analogical reasoning is usually used to debunk or destroy the other partys
prior use of analogical reasoning, by stating that the case cited and the clients
situation are actually different, thus no common conclusion can be inferred from both
situations.
Examples:
The opponent might use counter-analogical reasoning by saying that in the
Mercado v Espiritu case, the minors representation misled the other party for after all,
the minors have passed the age of puberty and truly look like adults. While on the
other case, even if Mario, the seller, lied about his age, there is no way the buyer could
be misled because the Mario is a baby-faced sixteen tear old. That the seller has not
passed the age of puberty, and neither does he look like an adult. Thus, there are no
factual similarities in both cases.
In the tooth-extraction case as an analogy why death sentence should be
imposed, the opposing party who is against death penalty might reason using counter
analogy by saying satirically that if my tooth aches, I may have it pulled, such that if
my head aches, I may have it cut. This is another way of telling that there are not
enough similarities between tooth extraction and death penalty to warrant a
conclusion.
C. Policy-based reasoning
Policy-based reasoning reaches a conclusion by connecting the facts of the
case to the states existing policy, i.e., what would be best for the society at large.
Public policy is recognized or established by the State in determining what acts are
unlawful as [they are]
Deemed injurious to the public or contrary to the public good. Thus, an agreement is
against public policy if it is injurious to the interest of the public, contravenes some
established interest of the society, violates some public statutes, is against good
morals, tends to interfere with the public welfare or safety, or if it is at war with the
interest of society and is in conflict with the morals of time.
Example:
Mario should not be bound by the contract. Young people whose minds and
morals are not yet fully formed should not suffer from the harmful consequences of
those acts which they themselves could not fully consent to. He is not yet mature
enough to consider the full consequences of his decisions. He deserves to be
protected, not punished.
D. Narrative reasoning
Narrative reasoning the conclusion by telling a story that shows the context,
description and perspective that appeals to commonly-held ideas of justice, mercy or
fairness.
Example:
Narrative where there is possibility of undue influence:
Mario should not be bound by the contract he signed because Joey, the
car dealer for 25 years, pressured Mario, discouraged him from calling his parents to
ask for advice and telling him that another buyer was looking at the car at the very
moment, Joey lowered his voice, said: Ill tell you what Ill do. Ill give you a bonus
of Php 5000.00 on top of your selling price, if you will allow me to facilitate the sale of
your car to the buyer. This bonus is a secret between us.