Knowledge by connaturality is a reality that has been profusely studied in epistemology, but which, paradoxically, has tended to be ignored in contemporary theories of legal argumentation, which are very strongly influenced by analytics and hermeneutics. The present work seeks to show the applicability of that type of knowledge to the solution of legal cases, its relevance, its prevalence and greater degree of perfection, to the point of being able to affirm that it constitutes the most appropriate form of access to the correct or fair solution of the case.