What type of faulty reasoning is exhibited when a lawyer claims "I ask you for whole justice, not part justice" in a courtroom setting?

The statement "I ask you for whole justice, not part justice" reflects a faulty analogy. In this context, the lawyer is suggesting that justice can only be served in totality and implying that any partial or incomplete form of justice is equivalent to a failure or injustice. This reasoning draws an analogy between the concept of justice as a whole and the idea that anything less than complete justice is fundamentally flawed or unjust.

A faulty analogy occurs when the comparison made between two ideas or situations fails to account for significant differences that undermine the validity of the argument. Here, the lawyer's reasoning obscures the complexities of legal judgments where sometimes justice can be achieved in parts, and the legal system often must navigate between full/partial judgments based on the specifics of each case. By insisting on "whole justice," the lawyer simplifies the concept inappropriately, leading to a misleading and potentially fallacious line of reasoning.

This type of reasoning can be problematic in a legal context, where nuanced interpretations and partial resolutions are often necessary. Thus, this statement illustrates the use of faulty analogy effectively, demonstrating how a lawyer might misrepresent the nature of justice in an attempt to persuade a jury.