Reasoning Symbolically About Partially Matched Cases

ion path to follow in the Factor Hierarchy and how abstractly to characterize a distinguishing factor. One wants to characterize a distinction broadly enough to take advantage of all relevant contrasting and corroborating factors. One also wants to focus on distinctions that hold up at more abstract levels and avoid characteriziations so broad as to destroy the contrast or allow obvious objections. plainti f fs product-development tools with him to the defendant. CATO again says the F15 distinction shows possible improper means in Sperry, but this time CATO downplays the distinction, arguing on the basis of F7 that the MBL hypo and Sperry are the same. An example of a strategic choice using the Factor Hierarchy is choosing a narrower interpretation of a distinction where a broader interpretation does not lead to a contrast, as shown by comparing Boxes 3 and 4 in Figure 5. After hypothetically modifying the MBL problem so that the defendant took product development information (F7), CATO can still emphasize the F15 distinction but this time does not focus on the improper means aspect (F120), as it did before in the MBL/Sperry comparison (Box 3). This would not be an effective way to draw a contrast, since in the modified problem there is also evidence of improper means (as CATO now points out in the new argument downplaying F15). Instead, CATO again interprets F15 in terms of F106, an abstract factor "lower down" in the Factor Hierarchy (see Figure 4). CATO eschews a broader interpretation in favor of a narrower one that more clearly contrasts with the other case, even though that means certain corroborating factors in the broader interpretation cannot be used. How does CATO use strategic considerations to decide which path to use and how far up or down the Factor Hierarchy to go in interpreting a distinction? The answer lies in heuristic policies embodied in CATO's algorithm for emphasizing a distinction. The policies ensure that a sufficient contrast between the cases exists, with respect to both the focal abstraction itself (steps 1 .A and 1 .B) and its ancestors in the Hierarchy (step 2.B). As a result, CATO decides not to use F120 in Box 4 for emphasizing the distinction, because there is no suitable contrast with respect to this abstract factor. F120 must either Figure 4; Excerpts from CATO's Factor Hierarchy