Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argument from analogy in legal rhetoric

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper applies recent work on scripts and stories developed as tools of evidential reasoning in artificial intelligence to model the use of argument from analogy as a rhetorical device of persuasion. The example studied is Gerry Spence’s closing argument in the case of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, said to be the most persuasive closing argument ever used in an American trial. It is shown using this example how argument from analogy is based on a similarity premise where similarity between two cases is modeled using the device of a story scheme from the hybrid theory of legal evidential reasoning (Bex in Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, Dordrecht 2011). It is shown how the rhetorical strategy of Spence’s argumentation in the closing argument interweaves argument from analogy with explanation through three levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aleven V (1997) Teaching case based argumentation through an example and models. PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

  • Ashley K (1988) Arguing by analogy in law: a case-based model. In: Helman DH (ed) Analogical reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 205–224

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley K (2006) Case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Oskamp A (eds) Information technology and lawyers. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bex F (2011) Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bex F, Prakken H (2010) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam etc, pp 73–84

  • Bex FJ, Bench-Capon TJM, Verheij B (2011) What makes a story plausible? The need for precedents. In: Atkinson KM (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2011: The twenty-fourth annual conference, IOS Press, Amsterdam pp 23–32

  • Branting KL (2003) A reduction-graph model of precedent in legal analysis. Artif Intell 150:59–95

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer S (1996) Exemplary reasoning: semantics, pragmatics and the rational force of legal argument by analogy, Harv Law Rev 109:923–1038

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn Sci 7(2):155–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman A (1970) A theory of human action. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF (2010) The carneades argumentation support system. In: Reed C, Tindale CW (eds) Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. College Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini Marcello (2004) A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Log 24:153–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarini M, Butchart A, Simard Smith P, Moldovan A (2009) Resources for research on analogy: a multi-disciplinary guide. Informal Log 29(2):84–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak KJ, Thagard P (1989) Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cogn Sci 13:295–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laronge JA (2012) Evaluating universal sufficiency of a single logical form for inference in court. Law Probab Risk. doi:10-1093lprmgs005.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Lief MS, Caldwell M, Bryce B (1998) Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: greatest closing arguments in modern law. Scribner, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer PN (2002) Making the narrative move: observations based upon reading Gerry Spence’s closing argument in the estate of Karen Silkwood v. Kerr-Mcgee, Inc. New York University School of Law. Clin Law Rev 9(1):229–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington N, Hastie R (1992) Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision-making. J Pers Soc Psychol 62(2):189–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for Juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the Juror: the psychology of Juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–221

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl Eng Rev 21(2006):163–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and burden of proof. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashke R (2000) The killing of Karen Silkwood: the story behind the Kerr-McGee plutonium case, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank RC, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar WA, van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (2010) Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artif Intell Law 18(3):217–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Macagno F (2006) Common knowledge in argumentation. Stud Commun Sci 6:3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weinreb LL (2005) Legal reason: the use of analogy in legal argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assumption University Chair in Argumentation Studies, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR), University of Windsor, 2500 University Ave. W., Windsor, ON, N9B 3Y1, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walton, D. Argument from analogy in legal rhetoric. Artif Intell Law 21, 279–302 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-013-9139-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-013-9139-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation