Argument from the GENUS
The argument from the genus [1] is based on an essential definition. It transfers to the species, and finally to the individuals, the qualities, duties, representations, all the characteristics associated with the genus to which they belong, see classification; categorization; definition.
From a semantic point of view, the relation hyperonym / hyponym transfers to the hyponym the characteristics of the hyperonym.
2. Extension to the genus: the generic clause “… and the like”
Generic clauses are phrases such as “… and the things of the same kind”, “… and the like”. The text has the form:
This provision applies a, b, c, and things of the same kind.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2[1].
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. (My italics)
If an object x is not included in the enumeration “a, b, c …” but if it can be considered to belong to the category defined by the enumeration, then the generalizing clause “and all beings of the same kind” applies the provision concerning a, b and c to x.
This shows that the enumerated beings are mentioned not only for their own sake, but also as prototypes from which a new category is to be derived, see Analogy (II).
This rule applies to cars, motorcycles, and all private vehicles.
Cars and motorcycles are regarded as prototypical members of the category “personal transport” to which the rule applies. Note that the particle etc. would also open the list to new categories of individuals, but would not give any indication of the relevant common feature that brings them into a particular genus, as the provision “all private vehicles” provision does.
The generic provision may either create a new category from the enumeration of specific individuals, or it may explicitly mention an existing genus:
You must pay the tax on chickens, geese, and other poultry.
Conclusion: so on ducks and turkeys.
Chickens and geese are mentioned only as prototypical examples of the category “poultry”. One can discuss borderline cases, for example whether a peacock is really a backyard animal or a pet. In any case, there is no levy on rabbits, which are not considered poultry.
On the other hand, the absence of a generic provision limits the application of the measure to the categories that are explicitly mentioned:
You have to pay the tax on chickens and geese.
Conclusion: Not on ducks.
Unless the legislator’s intention is invoked.
The use of the comprehensive clause is not limited to the legal field:
Fixed concrete grill
Caution! Do not use alcohol, gasoline or similar liquids to light or reactivate the fire.
[1] Latin ejusdem generis argument. Idem, « equal »; genus, « kind ».
[2] Quoted from www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (01-07-2017)