A claim is made: 'Two new situations both involve convenience, so they must have the same ruling.'
Step 1: Identify the original case and ruling.
Step 2: Is convenience the legal cause or merely a broad wisdom?
Step 3: Does the new case truly share that cause?
Step 4: Is there a contrary text or operative distinction?
If the cause is not established, the proposed conclusion fails. Even an established cause cannot extend a ruling when absent from the new case.
Opening interactive controls...
Applying Validity Conditions and Identifying Causes in Legal Analogy
A claim is made: 'Two new situations both involve convenience, so they must have the same ruling.'
Step 1: Identify the original case and ruling.
Step 2: Is convenience the legal cause or merely a broad wisdom?
Step 3: Does the new case truly share that cause?
Step 4: Is there a contrary text or operative distinction?
If the cause is not established, the proposed conclusion fails. Even an established cause cannot extend a ruling when absent from the new case.