This weeks reading on chapter 4 focused on the different reasoning processes including logic, generalizations, cause and effect, signs, analogy, and authority. The chapter emphasized how these processes in arguments are what we naturally find in our own and others' arguments with different variations. Argument by analogy was particularly interesting to me because of its rhetorical emphasis between two similar or different topics, creating a literal or figurative analogy. A literal analogy is supposed to emphasize facts and the comparisons of the situations. A figurative analogy focuses on imaginative or unrealistic relations.
In theory, no two situations can be virtually identical making this form of argument very common with simple and complex comparisons. The book focused on the importance of argument by analogy to lawyers and judges in a court of law. An example of this is when lawyers make references to past cases that are similar to theirs and have already had a final decision made. By creating an analogous relationship between different cases, one being unfinalized and the other being declared, forms a path for the court to make a similar decision. Although this reasoning process may seem like common sense, it definitely has its flaws. One issue with this is whether the courts made the best decision possible and the outcomes from their ruling. If a lawyer is trying to make an analogy between cases and the wrong decision was made in the past case, it clearly should not be used to form an analogy and help a defendant. A lawyer’s main goal is to help their defendant, however it is very important to make sure the right decision was made in the past to ensure the analogy is logical and true. In using this reasoning process, we need to investigate what similarities and differences are evident and important to the case, and how contradicting analogies can be solved.
Learning about argument of analogy is an excellent way to gain an understanding of how different people argue their claims. I think that the most common form of analogy used in an argument is figurative, people will come up with ideas and claims in the beginning of their argument, prior to bringing along the facts, in the form of literal analogy. In figurative analogy it is common for the person arguing to use metaphors and similes, whereas with literal analogy the person arguing says exactly what it is that they have an opinion about, it is a more direct form of arguing. Personally I chose logic as what I thought is the most interesting part of an argument, because to me it is the logic of an argument that makes or breaks the argument. If the logic seems off in an argument, for example if different parts of the logic does not match up then the argument will not gain any credibility and so it will be a powerless argument. On the other hand, if someone presents an argument that is structured, to the point, and includes a lot of proven facts, then that to me is a solid argument.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a really interesting point about how analogies are used in court rooms. I never consciously thought about the path that is created for a current case by making an analogy to a past case. I am in agreement with Matz in regards to the fact that most analogies used today are figurative. I think this is especially true when arguing with someone over beliefs. If you make an analogy comparing a situation with a personal situation, the person that may not agree could potentially be convinced to see the point from a different perspective. Another common way analogies are used is to convey the severity of a situation. People will make analogies to well-known events (normally either very positive or very negative) to convey the severity of a situation or how they're feeling. Analogies are a way that people make arguments in the smallest sense, and have become so ingrained in daily life that sometimes people do not even notice they are using them.
ReplyDeleteI take issue with the phrase "logical and true" because something analogous may be something that is untrue and it is being used to understand an issue that is similarly untrue. An analogies truth is also not the central component of an analogy or the benefit it brings to argument. An analogy is used when comparing two things. Certainly analogies can be bad; like the analogy some people make comparing Trump to Hitler, which is a ill-suited and lazy analogy. This analogy is bad because it equates Trump's reign to that of Hitler's. Yes, Trump and Hitler may share similar qualities, but making them analogous is going too far. I would have to disagree with you that analogies are common sense since common sense can be culturally determined and analogies often times come from context and from within a particularly culture. An analogy is different than a lawyer referencing a former case; it is used more as a metaphor or something which airs the same truth as the matter at hand.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a really hood job describing argument by analogy. But talking about the negative impact of argument by analogy when it comes to decisions of cases is an interesting point. I didn't think about this side of argument by analogy and it helped me realize that how important it is for lawyers. A wrong decision can lead to worse decision in the future if lawyers instead of thinking about fighting for what is right just wants to win a case. It can definitely be a disadvantage for the defendant. This is also made me think about the debate for Roe v. Wade and the argument to change. It is a precedent that has been used by states to defend women's right to choose. But if it gets overturned in can lead to many wrong decisions for future women taking away their right to choose.
ReplyDelete