Chapter 12.

3
Appraising Analogical Arguments
What is Analogical Argument?

An analogical argument proceeds from the similarity of

two or more things in one or more respects to the
similarity of those things in some further aspects.
For Example:

Like the Earth, Europa has an atmosphere containing

oxygen.
(There might be life on Europa because it has an
atmosphere that contains oxygen just like the Earth.)

Analogy is an inductive argument

It is a form of inductive reasoning because it strives to
provide understanding of what is likely to be true, rather
than deductively proving something as fact.
CRITERIA USED TO DISTINGUISH ANALOGICAL
ARGUMENTS:
1. Number of entities (The greater the number, the
stronger the argument)

Number of entities is the first criterion in evaluating of

analogical argument. It is said generally that larger the
number of entities stronger is the argument. However,
if a conclusion is drawn from analogical argument has
six instances in its premises; it will not be exactly
three times as portable as a similar argument that has
two premises. Even though it is important to increase
the number of entities but other factors are also
important.

The number of entities or instances is not precisely

related to the probability of the conclusion

This criterion is similar to the notion of induction by

simple enumerationthe more examples enumerated,
the higher the probability (ceteris paribus).

The more ways we know the target subject is like the

members of the comparison set, the more probable it
will be that it is also like the members of the
comparison set in having the target attribute.

For Example:
If my three friends bought their cameras from three
different stores but were all delighted, then my
conclusion is somewhat more likely to be true, no
matter where I decide to buy mine.
In general, the more variety there is among the
instances, the stronger the analogical argument
becomes.
3. Number of similar respects (The greater the number
of respects, the stronger the argument)
-

In this criterion it is said that greater the number of

respects in which the entity in the conclusion is
similar to the entities in the premises, the more
portable is that conclusion.

The number of respects is not precisely related to the

probability with which the conclusion follows.
For Example:
If the dresses purchased are of same style and same
price then it will give more satisfaction.

4. Relevance (The closer the relevance is to a causal

connection, the stronger the argument)
-

The criteria we're considering apply only if the

matters with which they are concerned are relevant to
the argument. Ordinarily, for example, we would
assume that the day of the week on which a car was
purchased is irrelevant to a buyer's satisfaction with
it. But relevance is not something about which we
can be terribly precise; it is always possible in
principle to tell a story in the context of which
anything may turn out to be relevant. So we just have
to use our best judgment in deciding whether or not
some respect deserves to be considered.

Relevance adds more force to the argument and a

single highly relevant factor contributes more to the
argument than a cluster of irrelevant similarities.

Even if two objects are similar, we also need to make

sure that those aspects in which they are similar are
actually relevant to the conclusion.

For example:

If we notice the behaviour of five bulldogs. They are

friendly and intelligent.

We conclude that the next bulldog will also be friendly

and intelligent.

If we can name several other John Grisham novels

that became block-buster movies, the more probable it
will be that his latest novel will also become a blockbuster movie.

If we change our premise to "John Grisham's

novels The Firm, The Pelican Brief, A Time to Kill, The
Client, The Chamber, and Rainmaker were all made
into block-buster movies. this strengthens the
argument.
In general, more instances strengthen an analogy;
fewer weaken it.

2. Variety of the instances in the premises (More

dissimilar instances mentioned, the stronger the
argument)

12.3 Appraising Analogical Argument

Gladys Nead 1-D

In general, the more similarities there are between the

instances and my conclusion, the better for the
analogical argument.

For Example:
If a new dress is bought from the same manufacturer
from which the previous one was bought it will likely
to be more satisfactory.
Suppose two books are alike in that their covers are
both green.

Just because one of them is boring does not mean

that the other one is also boring, since the color of a
book's cover is completely irrelevant to its contents.

5. Disanalogies (The fewer disanalogies and their less

importance, the stronger the argument)

If a person acquires 30 miles to gallon from his

new car , one may infer that in order to purchase a
car of same model he must get at least 20 miles to
the gallon.

If my friends all bought Geos with automatic

transmissions and I plan to buy a Geo with a
standard transmission, then the conclusion that I
will be delighted with my purchase is a little less
likely to be true.

In general, the less dissimilarity between instances

and conclusion, the better an analogical argument
is.

Disanalogy A point of difference between the cases

mentioned in the premises and the case mentioned in the
conclusion of an analogical argument.
-

Disanalogies weaken the analogical arguments. As

disanalogies are primary are the primary weapon
against an analogical argument whatever can ward
off any potential disanalogies will strengthen the
argument.

It is a way that the target subject is different from

the members of the comparison set. Disanalogies
are most damaging when the difference is one that
is particularly relevant to the comparison
attribute.

Even if two objects are similar in lots of relevant

respects, we should also consider whether there
are dissimilarities which might cast doubt on the
conclusion.

For Example:
Returning to the restaurant example, if we find out
that restaurant B now has a new owner who has
just hired a team of very bad cooks, we would
think that the food is probably not going to be
good anymore despite being the same as A in
many other ways.

If my friends all bought DSLR with GPS and I plan

to buy a DSLR with GPS, then the conclusion that
I will be delighted with my purchase is a little less
likely to be true.

In general, the fewer dissimilarities between

instances and conclusion, the better an analogical
argument

6. Claim that the conclusion makes (The more

modest the claim in the conclusion, the stronger
the argument)
-

In general it is said that the more modest the

claim, the less burden is placed on the premises
and stronger the argument. The bolder the claim,
the greater the burden is on the premises and
weaker is the argument.

If the stated conclusion is hedged, conservative,

more cautious, or guarded relative to the premises,
the probability of the argument becomes stronger.

The less relevant the comparison attributes are,

the weaker the argument.

For Example:

12.3 Appraising Analogical Argument

Gladys Nead 1-D

References:
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-analogicalreasoning.htm#didyouknowout
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/analogy.php
http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/a_criteria.shtml
http://donald.nute.ws/PHIL1500/Analogies/analogy_note
s.htm
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/5909/6050
951/MyLogicLab_ebook/MLL_Copi_13e_Ch11/013614139
0_Ch11_03.pdf
Logic: language, deduction and induction, Twelfth Edition,
Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen