> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/chapter-2-what-is-legal-reasoning/quick-+-easy-approach-to-analogical-reasoning.md).
# Quick + Easy Approach to Analogical Reasoning
When using analogical reasoning, the **base point** is guides your comparisons. When it comes using analogical reasoning in a legal context, the base point is the feature or factor that matters most under the law. To find a good base point, ask yourself:
> ***What does the law care about and why?***
For example, let's say there was a law (in some imaginary weird place) that said: "No animals are allowed in apartment buildings."
> ***What does the law care about and why?***
>
> In this instance, we might say that this law cares about things like preventing disruption/noise and the risk of animal attacks from rogue pets.
So, let's also say that a new tenant has a hamster he wants to keep. He's arguing that he's legally entitled to keep his hamster. There are only two past cases involving this law:
* **Past case A:** A tenant tried to keep a dog. The court said this violated the rule.
* **Past case B:** A tenant kept a goldfish. The court said this did not violate the rule.
Now we have to ask if, in this instance, a hamster is more like a dog or a goldfish.
**If we compare past cases, we might get something like this:**
* Case A: *Dog = violation, because it’s noisy and disruptive.*
* Case B: *Goldfish = not a violation, because it’s quiet and contained.*
In our situation, we could argue that a hamster is more like a goldfish than a dog, because it is quiet, small, and kept in a contained tank/cage.
**Conclusion:** Therefore, keeping a hamster should not violate the rule!
***