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).

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 block-
buster 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.
If five friends instead of three report their satisfaction with the model I intend to
buy, that tends to make it even more likely that I will be satisfied, too.
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)

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.
In general, the more similarities there are between the instances and my
conclusion, the better for the analogical argument.

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 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)

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:

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.

References:
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-analogical-reasoning.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_notes.htm
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/5909/6050951/MyLogicLab_ebook/MLL_Copi_1
3e_Ch11/0136141390_Ch11_03.pdf
Logic: language, deduction and induction, Twelfth Edition, Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen