ABSTRACT
Reasoning by analogy is a non-deductive but still strong variety of legal argument that can establish its conclusion not just as plausible but as true (or correct). Still such argument may be supplemented to become deductively valid. But then such extra premises add nothing to the plausibility of the original non-deductive argument. The importance of possibly countervailing circumstances in establishing or rejecting analogy in the law is explained as well. Such countervailing considerations may be backed by analogy in their turn.
