Strategic Petition Framework

3. Analogical Reasoning Section

Compare the policy to an obviously illogical parallel:

• List valued items that come from outside
• Show that rejecting outsiders would mean losing these valued things
• Demonstrate inconsistency: "You value foreign goods but reject foreign people"

Key analogy structure:

• If X were true, then Y would follow (reductio ad absurdum)
• Show that Y is obviously undesirable
• Therefore X is wrong

4. Logical Cost-Benefit Analysis

Present the logical consequences:

• What is gained by the policy? (nothing)
• What is lost? (talent, loyalty, strength)
• Who benefits? (rivals and enemies)
• Who is harmed? (your own state)

5. Principle Appeal

Invoke higher principles:

• "Mount Tai does not reject soil, thus achieves its height"
• "Rivers and seas do not reject streams, thus achieve their depth"
• Connect to universal truths about greatness

6. Warning Conclusion

End with stark warning:

• "This is called lending weapons to bandits and giving food to thieves"
• Show that the policy actively helps enemies

Writing Principles

• Use parallel structure for rhetorical force
• Support every claim with concrete examples
• Address the ruler's self-interest, not abstract morality
• Avoid personal grievance; focus on policy harm

Expected Outcomes

• Policy is reversed
• Petitioner's position is restored or enhanced
• Precedent is established for future decisions

Verification

1. Confirm that every claim in the petition is supported by concrete historical examples with named figures and specific achievements.
2. Validate that the analogical reasoning section exposes a clear logical inconsistency in the policy (e.g., valuing foreign goods while rejecting foreign people).
3. Ensure the petition addresses the ruler's self-interest and state benefit, not the petitioner's personal grievance.