SUMMER II 2016-2017

GEN 103 CRITICAL & CREATIVE THINKING

ASSIGNMENT 1

ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY

By:
Student Name: Taye Safyan Almenhali
Student ID #:201630001

In Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Bachelor of Human Resource Management

Submitted To:
Dr. James Ryan Reblando

August 2017
Introduction

“Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities
are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical
reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the
world and make decisions”[ CITATION Wik17 \l 1033 ]

“When a person has a bad experience with a product and decides not to buy anything further
from the producer, this is often a case of analogical reasoning. It is also implicit in much of
science; for instance, experiments on laboratory rats typically proceed on the basis that some
physiological similarities between rats and humans entails some further similarity (e.g. possible
reactions to a drug)”[ CITATION Wik17 \l 1033 ]
Argument:

Argument is a group of two or more than two statements (preposition) that express an inference.

Argument by analogy:

In an argument by analogy a conclusion is claimed to depend on analogy (a comparison or

similarity) between two or more than two things.

Evaluating analogical arguments

Truth

“First of all we need to check that the two objects being compared are indeed similar in the way
assumed. For example, in the argument we just looked at, if the two novels actually have
completely different plots, one being an office romance and the other is a horror story, then the
argument is obviously unacceptable”[ CITATION Lau14 \l 1033 ]

Relevance

“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, 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 irelevant to its contents. In other
words, in terms of the explicit form of an analogical argument presented above, we need to
ensure that having properties Q1, ... Qn increases the probability of an object having property P”[
CITATION Lau14 \l 1033 ]

Number

“If we discover a lot of shared properties between two objects, and they are all relevant to the
conclusion, then the analogical argument is stronger than when we can only identify one or a few
shared properties. Suppose we find out that novel X is not just similar to another boring novel Y
with a similar plot. We discover that the two novels are written by the same author, and that very
few of both novels have been sold. Then we can justifiably be more confident in concluding that
X is likely to be boring novel”[ CITATION Lau14 \l 1033 ]
Diversity

“Here the issue is whether the shared properties are of the same kind or of different types.
Suppose we have two Italian restaurants A and B, and A is very good. We then find out that
restaurant B uses the same olive oil in cooking as A, and buys meat and vegetables of the same
quality from the same supplier. Such information of course increases the probability that B also
serves good food. But the information we have so far are all of the same kind having to do with
the quality of the raw cooking ingredients. If we are further told that A and B use the same brand
of pasta, this will increase our confidence in B further still, but not by much. But if we are told
that both restaurants have lots of customers, and that both restaurants have obtained Michelin
star awards, then these different aspects of similarities are going to increase our confidence in the
conclusion a lot more”[ CITATION Lau14 \l 1033 ]

Disanalogy

“Even if two objects X and Y are similar in lots of relevant respects, we should also consider
whether there are dissimilarities between X and Y 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”[ CITATION Lau14 \l
1033 ]

An example analogy:

“Strictly presented, an analogy will have three premises and a conclusion. The first two premises
establish the analogy by showing that the things in question are similar in certain respects. The
third premise establishes the additional fact known about one thing and the conclusion asserts
that because the two things are alike in other respects, they are alike in this additional respect as
well”[ CITATION LAB08 \l 1033 ]

Although people generally present analogical arguments in a fairly informal manner, they have
the following logical form:
Premise 1: X has properties P,Q, and R.

Premise 2: Y has properties P,Q, and R.

Premise 3: X has property Z as well.

Conclusion: Y has property Z.

X and Y are variables that stand for whatever is being compared, such as chimpanzees and
humans or blood and money. P, Q, R, and Z are also variables, but they stand for properties or
qualities, such as having a heart or being essential for survival. The use of P, Q, and R is just for
the sake of the illustration-the things being compared might have many more properties in
common.

An example of an analogy presented in strict form is as follows:

Premise 1: Rats are mammals and possess a nervous system that includes a developed brain.

Premise 2: Humans are mammals possess a nervous system that includes a developed brain.

Premise 3: When exposed to Nerve Agent 274, 90% of the rats died.

Conclusion: If exposed to Nerve Agent 274, 90% of all humans will die.

Standards of Assessment

The strength of an analogical argument depends on three factors. To the degree that an analogical
argument meets these standards it is a strong argument.

First, the more properties X and Y have in common, the better the argument. For example, in the
example given above rats and humans have many properties in common. This standard is based
on the common sense notion that the more two things are alike in other ways, the more likely it is
that they will be alike in some other way. It should be noted that even if the two things are very
much alike in many respects, there is still the possibility that they are not alike in regards to Z.
This is why analogical arguments are inductive.
Second, the more relevant the shared properties are to property Z, the stronger the argument. A
specific property, for example P, is relevant to property Z if the presence or absence of P affects
the likelihood that Z will be present. Using the example, above, the shared properties are
relevant. After all, since nerve agents work on the nervous system, the presence of a nervous
system makes it more likely that something will be killed by such agents. It should be kept in
mind that it is possible for X and Y to share relevant properties while Y does not actually have
property Z. Again, this is part of the reason why analogical arguments are inductive.

Third, it must be determined whether X and Y have relevant dissimilarities as well as

similarities. The more dissimilarities and the more relevant they are, the weaker the argument. In
the example above, humans and rats do have dissimilarities, but most of them are probably not
particularly relevant to the effects of nerve agents. However, it would be worth considering that
the size difference might be relevant-at the dosage the rats received, humans might be less likely
to die. Thus, size would be a difference worth considering.

Example

Premise 1: Attacking your next-door neighbors, killing them and taking their property is
immoral.

Premise 2: War involves going into a neighboring country, killing people and taking their
property.

Conclusion: So, war is immoral.

Assessment

War and violent theft share many properties: intrusion, violence, killing, and taking the property
of others. War and violent theft also share relevant properties: violence, killing, and taking of
property are relevant to moral assessment.

However, there are relevant dissimilarities. For example, war often takes place between mutual
antagonists. This relevant difference can be developed, perhaps ironically, in another analogical
argument: it could be argued that while it would be immoral for a person to just randomly attack
neighbors, just as a boxing match between two opponents is morally acceptable, a war between
two willing opponents would be morally acceptable as well.

Good and Bad Analogy Arguments

What is special about empirical analogy arguments is that they only work if the similarity
between the two objects being compared is extremely strong in areas that are relevant to the issue
being settled. Irrelevant similarities don't count. Irrelevant differences don't count either.
Relevant similarities make the argument stronger. Relevant differences make the argument
weaker. So the thing to do when evaluating an analogy argument is to pay attention to relevant
similarities and differences, and ignore irrelevant ones.

Unfortunately, analogies are also a powerful instrument of persuasion, even in instances where
they actually carry no weight. Our beliefs about the premise thingy are often so strong that
merely associating it with the conclusion thingy can be enough to convince us that the analogy is
correct even if the two things actually have nothing to do with each other.

As I've said before, an argument only succeeds if it is clear to you, as a reasonable person, that it
presents a clear and compelling logical reason for you to change your mind and agree with the
conclusion. If it doesn't seem clear to you that the argument has presented such a reason, then the
argument has failed. Since it is usually possible for two things to be very similar in a lot of ways
and yet be different in precisely the right way to kill an analogy argument, empirical analogies
usually don't present a logically compelling reason to change one's mind, and thus are often not
very logically compelling arguments.

To my mind, analogies nicely encapsulate the basic problem of cutting through rhetoric. They
often have a powerful effect on our imaginations, but they are also often complete rubbish.
Usually, but not always. Once in a while, an analogy argument is actually convincing. So your
problem, as a critical thinker, is to ignore the vividness of the image presented by the analogy,
and concentrate on whether the facts presented actually comprise a logically compelling
argument for the arguers conclusion. Just like critical thinking in general, evaluating analogy
arguments requires you to ignore the powerful effect that images can have on your emotions and
imagination, and to carefully and impersonally trace out the implications of whatever facts are
actually present.
False Analogy

The fallacy of false analogy occurs when an arguer offers an analogy in which the model and the
analog are only similar in ways that are not relevant to the property, or in which the model and
the analog are clearly different in a way that is very relevant to the property.

Here are some examples of False Analogy.

Iraq is a lot like Afghanistan, so the war there will go the same way. (Iraq and Afganistan both
have muslim populations, but that's about it. Terrain, population distribution, social structure,
form of government and military organization are all different. Since the course of war depends
on things like these rather than religion, the analogy is terrible.)

The national debt is like a metastasizing cancer that threatens to destroy our economy from
within. (The big difference that I see here is that an economy can recover from just about any
kind of "injury," while a living body can be killed by relatively small injuries. The deficit may
indeed be dangerous to our economy, but our economy is not enough like an animal body to
make the comparison meaningful.)

Just as rain wears down mountains, human problems always yield to perseverance. (Mountains
are made of rocks and minerals that have a strictly limited ability to resist water erosion, while
human problems are made of things like death, anger, hatred, injury, disease and lots of things
that don't get better.)

We should have interventions for coffee drinkers, because they're just like alcoholics. (Yeah,
sure, coffee drinkers go on three week binges and wake up in stolen cars on the edge of the
Vegas strip unable to remember their own names and the names of the oddly dressed farm
animals who are currently singing Christmas carols in the back seat of the car. Yeah, coffee
drinkers are just like alcoholics.)
Bibliography

LABOSSIERE, M. (2008, March 12). Analogical Argument. Retrieved August 17, 2017, from

https://reasonresources.wordpress.com:

https://reasonresources.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/analogical-argument/

Lau, J. (2014). [A11] Analogical Arguments. Retrieved August 17, 2017, from

http://philosophy.hku.hk: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/analogy.php

Wiki. (2014, November 13). Argument By Analogy. Retrieved August 17, 2017, from

http://wiki.c2.com: http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentByAnalogy

Wikipedia. (2017). Argument from analogy. Retrieved August 17, 2017, from

https://en.wikipedia.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy