Argument from the GENUS

1. Argument from the Genus

This argument [1] is based on an essential definition. It transfers the qualities, duties, representations,and all the characteristics associated with the genus to its species, and finally to the individuals belonging to this genus, see classification; categorization; definition.
From a cognitive point of view the argument from the genus is the same as the argument from the category. From a linguistic point of view the argument from the genus is the same as the argument from lexical definition. Like the genus/species argument, the relation hyperonym/hyponym relationship transfers the characteristics of the hyperonym to the hyponym.

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 follpwing form:

This provision applies to 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 emphasis)

If an object x is not included in the enumeration “a, b, c…” but can be considered part of 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 2.

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 subcategories of individuals, but would not indicate 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 an enumeration of specific individuals, or it may explicitly mention an existing genus:

You must pay the tax on chickens, geese, and other poultry.
Conclusion: the same applies to ducks and turkeys.

Chickens and geese are mentioned only as prototypical examples of the category “poultry”. One could discuss borderline cases,such as whether a peacock is really a backyard animal or  pet. In any case, rabbits are not considered poultry and are not subject to the levy.

However, 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 intent 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)