Analogical reasoning fails when negative factual resemblances outweigh positive resemblances

Evidence

In the language of the logicians, the positive resemblances in the facts do not outweigh the negative resemblances in the compared factual scenarios. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 593

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 593
• XREF: connects to: Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 547; Inductive enumeration and legal analogy differ only in conclusion breadth — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 548; Analogical reasoning infers additional properties from shared case similarities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 570 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Valid legal analogies depend on relevant similarities rather than case quantities #expands (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 343
• Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 608
• Judicial generalization and analogical reasoning constitute the process of induction #qualifies (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 676
• Reasoning requires recognizing real logical connections and relationships among facts #corroborates (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 247