In an analogical argument, generally speaking, the greater the number of relevant similarities between items being compared, the greater the probability they will share some further related characteristic.
True,
Yes, that’s right. Analogical reasoning is a form of non-deductive reasoning, and the more relevant similarities we can find between the items being compared, the greater the probability they will share some further related characteristic. Of course, not just any similarity will do: only relevant similarities increase the probability the two things will share the further feature.
In analogical reasoning, the number of shared characteristics between items that are compared is more important than the relevance of the characteristics to a given conclusion.
False
Yes, that’s right. It’s easy to see why one might think that the number of similarities is important, but numbers alone doesn’t increase the strength of an analogical argument. The similarities also need to be relevant.
Which answer best explains why the passage does not offer a good argument from analogy?
“Since eating only one kind of food would drive you to hate that food, it follows that having only one wife or husband will lead you to hate that person eventually.”
1. Having more than one wife or husband is illegal and immoral, so this argument doesn’t work.
2. Foodstuffs affect us in only a limited number of ways. Our wives and husbands affect in many different ways so, even though we might have only one, they offer a rich and varied feast.
3. We would die if we didn’t eat, but we can live without a husband or wife.
2
Yes, I think this is the problem with the argument as an argument from analogy. And it is a matter of relevance. Perhaps serious food-enthusiasts will disagree, but food appears to affect us in a much more limited range of ways than our spouses. I’m fond of pasta but it plays only a limited number of roles in my life, while my wife - although there is only one of her - plays many.
Which answer best explains why the passage does not offer a good argument from analogy?
Letter to the editor following a report that someone had been turned away from an after-hours medical clinic because she couldn’t pay for treatment for her feverish, vomiting child: “Why do people attend private clinics for medical treatment with insufficient funds to cover fees? Do these same people go to the petrol station, fill up, toss $5 out the window and say “I’ll be back with the rest later,” or perhaps after dining out one evening, pay for the meal and promise to return next week, month or year to pay for the wine? I think not. The answer is simple - don’t go to private clinics.”
1. Doctors are much more expensive than most restaurants.
2. People choose to go out to dinner and to buy petrol and can normally choose when and where to do so, but they may have no choice about taking their sick child to a hospital.
3. Doctors are obliged to treat sick children. Restaurants and petrol stations are not obliged to sell meals or petrol.
2
Yes, I think this is the problem with this argument. It’s an attempt to offer an argument by analogy but the cases - the parent with the sick child and someone wanting fuel or a restaurant meal - don’t really seem to be analogous.
Which answer best explains why the passage does not offer a good argument from analogy?
It is cruel to encourage the suffering of unwanted and abandoned puppies and kittens. That is why we spay or neuter our pets. But surely people are more important than pets, and the suffering of an unwanted and abandoned child is far worse than the suffering of a dog or cat. If we sterilize our pets to prevent suffering, then we can surely do no less for the poor and homeless.
1. Humans tend not to have as many offspring as dogs or cats.
2. Many people want to adopt children, so there are not really any ’unwanted’ children.
3. People, unlike dogs and cats, understand the consequences of their sexual behavior and are capable of making choices based on the consequences of their actions.
3
Yes, I think this is the problem with the argument. This seems to be an important respect in which humans and the animals mentioned in the argument are relevantly dissimilar. (Notice that this need not be the only thing wrong with the argument!).