Legal skills and debates in Scotland
Legal skills and debates in Scotland

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

1.2.2  Reasoning by analogy

Reasoning by analogy involves drawing specific conclusions from other specific examples based on the similarities between them – the fact that they are ‘analogous’ to one another. When reasoning by analogy takes place, the objective is to say something specific about the case at hand based on the fact that it is ‘like’ other examples in certain ways. This can look a lot like how judicial reasoning takes place using case precedents. Consider Figure 4.

A visual illustration of reasoning by analogy.
Figure 4Reasoning by analogy

Here you are aware of the characteristics of your specific case (step 1), and you are aware of a number of previous cases that may share some of these characteristics with your case. You locate the examples that share the material characteristics of your case (step 2). These form a loose collection of analogous experiences (category A) which are similar to a general principle in inductive reasoning. In step 3, based on the similarities, you assume that your case has other similar characteristics to the analogous experiences, effectively placing your case within the same category as them. In judicial reasoning, this usually involves applying the same legal outcome to your case as was applied to the analogous precedent case or cases.

The conclusion using reasoning by analogy is much less likely to be certain than for deductive reasoning. It is sometimes considered a form of inductive reasoning, and is unstable because it relies heavily on the choices that you make about which pre-existing examples are similar to your case and why. The green exceptions in the diagram represent cases that you did not consider to be analogous to your case in important ways, so they are excluded. However, it might be that they share other similarities with your specific case that you did not think of, or did not consider important. In reality, therefore, your case may belong in a different category from that which you placed it on your conclusion. Or it may belong with both sets of examples at once, and you have had to make a choice about which cases are more similar in more important ways to yours to decide which legal outcome to transfer across. The truthfulness of the conclusion is entirely dependent on the strength and accuracy of the analogies drawn.

Take your learning further

Making the decision to study can be a big step, which is why you'll want a trusted University. The Open University has 50 years’ experience delivering flexible learning and 170,000 students are studying with us right now. Take a look at all Open University courses.

If you are new to University-level study, we offer two introductory routes to our qualifications. You could either choose to start with an Access module, or a module which allows you to count your previous learning towards an Open University qualification. Read our guide on Where to take your learning next for more information.

Not ready for formal University study? Then browse over 1000 free courses on OpenLearn and sign up to our newsletter to hear about new free courses as they are released.

Every year, thousands of students decide to study with The Open University. With over 120 qualifications, we’ve got the right course for you.

Request an Open University prospectus371