Bruce Waller has defended a deductive reconstruction of the kinds of analogical arguments found in ethics, law, and metaphysics. This paper demonstrates the limits of such a reconstruction and argues for an alternative, nondeductive reconstruction. It will be shown that some analogical arguments do not fit Waller's deductive schema, and that such a schema does not allow for an adequate account of the strengths and weaknesses of an analogical argument. The similarities and differences between the account defended herein and the Trudy Govier's account are discussed as well.
Guarini, Marcello. (2004). A Defence of Non-Deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments. Informal Logic, 24 (2), 153-168.