| Analogy | An analogy consists of a comparison between two things in which, on the basis of certain similarities, a principle or characteristic of the one term is then applied to the other term and asserted as true in that case as well. In law these take the form of precedents.
|
 |
|
|
| Arguments Based on Statistical Studies | An argument that relies on the results of studying a sample group as the basis for drawing an inference about the target population. A statistical study has several factors: One, a targeted population about whom we want information and, two, the sample group we intend to study as a a microcosm of the larger group. In certain sorts of statistical studies, such as medical experiments, psychological testing, or pharmaceutical studies, research protocol may call for a control group.
|
|
|
|
| Arguments from Analogy | Arguments based on an analogy are one of the most important kinds of inductive reasoning. The form of an argument from analogy: "A is like B in terms of characteristics p, q, r. A also has characteristic "z." So, B has characterististic "z" also.
|
|
|
|
| Biased Statistics | One of the fallacies of presumption in which a statistical study is used to draw an inference about a target population, but the sample group is not diverse enough.
|
|
|
|
| Causal claim | A proposition of the form "A causes B" or "A is caused by B."
|
|
|
|
| Cause-and-Effect Reasoning | This is a form of inductive reasoning. It is claimed that an antecedent condition will result in a particular effect. How likely it is becomes the issue.
|
|
|
|
| False Analogy | This is a fallacy in which two terms are being compared for the purpose of making an inference resting on that comparison--and yet there are no real similarities at all, other than trivial ones.
|
|
|
|
| Hasty Generalization | A fallacy of presumption in which a statistical study is used as the basis for an inference, but the sample size is too small or atypical. If the size is simply too small, a generalization from it could result in the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. These are commonly seen in stereotypical reasoning based on a sample of one or two. If the sample size is not sufficient, avoid drawing a generalization.
|
|
|
|
| Hypothetical case (alias Hypo) | In hypothetical law cases, a scenario or story is presented, with the task of deciding how it is to be evaluated given the existing laws and precedents. This is an important application of analogical reasoning, requiring lawyers and law students to be both astute and imaginative in assessing the hypothetical cases.
|
|
|
|
| Inductive argument | This is an argument in which the premises provide no more than partial support for the conclusion--the conclusion can never be said to follow with certainty.
|
|
|
|
| Inductive generalization | An argument of the form: "x% of A's polled (or sampled) are Bs. Therefore, x% of all As are Bs."
|
|
|
|
| Legal Precedents | When we argue using a precedent we are employing an analogy. We are implicitly asserting that there are sufficient similarities to allow for the principle of the one (the ruling of a precedent-setting case) to apply to the situation at hand.
|
|
|
|
| Margin of Error | The margin of error recognizes that the inference from the smaller, sample group to the targeted population contains a degree of probability, which is indicated by the range of the margin of error plus-or-minus "z." The margin of error means the range goes from -z% to +z%, which is a range of 2z. This means if your margin of error is 3%, then the range is 6% and a margin of error of 5% will give a range of 10%, which is significant range. The smaller the margin of error z, the better.
|
|
|
|
| Post Hoc argument | A fallacious argument in which it is claimed "A causes B" on the basis of "A" happening before "B."
|
|
|
|
| Statistical syllogism | A statistical syllogism is an argument of the form: "x% of A is B. p is an A. Therefore, p is a B." For example, "56% of potato chips are damaged. That is a potato chip. Therefore it is damaged."
|