ABSTRACT
The structure and sequences of analogous reasoning serve to show the implausibility of the ‘partial reducibility thesis’ stating as it does that analogy is reducible to balancing of legal principles. Problems raised by the partial reducibility thesis include the contingency of reducibility and the fact that analogous reasoning proper is done under the cover of balancing. Analogy and balancing have opposite normative conditions, explaining the unacceptability of the reducibility enterprise.
