5.3 Evaluating Analogical Arguments
2 min read•august 9, 2024
Analogical arguments compare familiar concepts to explain unfamiliar ones. They rely on similarities between source and domains to draw conclusions. Understanding the components and evaluation of analogies is crucial for effective critical thinking.
Assessing analogical arguments involves examining relevant similarities, identifying disanalogies, and evaluating the strength of conclusions. Recognizing false analogies and strengthening valid ones are key skills in analyzing inductive reasoning and analogical arguments.
Components of Analogies
Key Elements of Analogical Reasoning
Top images from around the web for Key Elements of Analogical Reasoning
CRITICAL THINKING STRATEGIES-PPT | OER Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
Free Pearson's Red Critical Thinking PowerPoint Diagram - Free PowerPoint Templates ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Critical Thinking Skills | College Success | | Course Hero View original
Is this image relevant?
CRITICAL THINKING STRATEGIES-PPT | OER Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
Free Pearson's Red Critical Thinking PowerPoint Diagram - Free PowerPoint Templates ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Key Elements of Analogical Reasoning
CRITICAL THINKING STRATEGIES-PPT | OER Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
Free Pearson's Red Critical Thinking PowerPoint Diagram - Free PowerPoint Templates ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Critical Thinking Skills | College Success | | Course Hero View original
Is this image relevant?
CRITICAL THINKING STRATEGIES-PPT | OER Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
Free Pearson's Red Critical Thinking PowerPoint Diagram - Free PowerPoint Templates ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Analogy draws comparisons between two different situations or objects to highlight similarities
- Source domain represents the familiar concept or situation used as a basis for comparison
- Target domain refers to the less familiar concept or situation being explained through the analogy
- Relevant similarities identify the shared characteristics between the source and target domains
- Disanalogies highlight the differences or limitations of the comparison between the source and target domains
Applying Analogies in Practice
- Analogies facilitate understanding of complex ideas by relating them to familiar concepts
- Source domain often comes from everyday experiences or well-known phenomena
- Target domain typically involves abstract, scientific, or unfamiliar concepts
- Relevant similarities form the foundation of the analogy's explanatory power
- Disanalogies help prevent overgeneralization and misapplication of the analogy
Evaluating Analogical Arguments
Assessing Argument Strength
- Strength of conclusion depends on the degree of between source and target domains
- Evaluate the number and significance of relevant similarities
- Consider the importance of similarities in relation to the conclusion being drawn
- Assess the presence and impact of disanalogies on the argument's validity
- Examine the consistency of the analogy across different aspects of the compared domains
Identifying False Analogies
- False analogy occurs when irrelevant or superficial similarities are used to draw invalid conclusions
- Recognize when crucial differences between source and target domains are overlooked
- Identify instances where the analogy breaks down due to significant disanalogies
- Analyze whether the shared characteristics are truly relevant to the argument's conclusion
- Consider alternative analogies that might better represent the target domain
Strengthening Analogical Arguments
- Increase the number of relevant similarities between source and target domains
- Address potential disanalogies by explaining their insignificance or accounting for them
- Provide additional supporting evidence beyond the analogy itself
- Use multiple analogies to reinforce the argument from different perspectives
- Acknowledge limitations of the analogy while emphasizing its strengths
Key Terms to Review (17)
Adequacy: Adequacy refers to the quality of being sufficient or satisfactory in meeting the necessary requirements or standards of an argument. It plays a critical role in assessing whether the evidence and premises provided in an argument are enough to support its conclusion, directly influencing the strength and cogency of the argument. Adequacy also relates to the relevance and representativeness of examples used, especially in analogical arguments, determining how well they support the claims being made.
Analog: In the context of reasoning, an analog refers to a comparison between two similar cases, often used to draw conclusions about one case based on the characteristics of another. This method relies on identifying relevant similarities and differences to support an argument or claim. The strength of an analog lies in how closely the two cases resemble each other and how well those similarities relate to the conclusion being drawn.
Aristotle: Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher whose work laid the groundwork for much of Western philosophy and science. He made significant contributions to logic, ethics, metaphysics, and rhetoric, establishing foundational concepts that are still relevant in evaluating arguments and reasoning today.
Assess the similarities: To assess the similarities means to evaluate and analyze the common characteristics or features shared between two or more subjects. This process involves looking closely at the aspects that make these subjects alike, helping to draw conclusions and make comparisons that can support arguments or enhance understanding.
Clarity: Clarity refers to the quality of being easily understood, free from ambiguity or confusion. It plays a crucial role in communication, allowing ideas to be expressed in a straightforward manner, which is essential for evaluating arguments effectively and developing strong positions.
Cognitive Bias: Cognitive bias refers to systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, leading individuals to make illogical decisions based on their subjective perspectives. These biases affect how we interpret information and influence the conclusions we draw, often causing flawed reasoning and decision-making processes. Understanding cognitive biases is crucial as they can distort our perceptions and lead to poor analogical reasoning, generalized assumptions, and circular logic.
Contextual Factors: Contextual factors refer to the circumstances, conditions, or influences that shape and impact a situation or argument. These factors can include cultural, social, historical, and situational elements that provide deeper insight into the relevance and validity of an argument, particularly when evaluating analogical reasoning.
Hasty Generalization: Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy where a conclusion is drawn from an insufficient amount of evidence or a biased sample. This often results in sweeping statements that do not accurately represent the whole group. Understanding this fallacy is essential as it highlights the importance of adequate evidence in reasoning, and it can be particularly relevant when evaluating various types of arguments, including inductive reasoning and analogical comparisons.
Identify the Analogy: Identifying the analogy involves recognizing a comparison between two different things that share similar characteristics, often used to draw a conclusion or make a point in reasoning. This process is essential in evaluating analogical arguments, as it helps to clarify how the two subjects are alike and the implications of those similarities for the argument being presented.
John Stuart Mill: John Stuart Mill was a 19th-century British philosopher and political economist known for his contributions to liberalism, ethics, and social theory. His works emphasized the importance of individual liberty, utilitarianism, and the role of evidence in forming knowledge, which connects deeply with principles of reasoning, argumentation, and ethical considerations.
Legal Reasoning: Legal reasoning is the process of applying legal rules and principles to specific facts in order to reach a conclusion or make a decision in a legal context. It involves analyzing laws, interpreting statutes, and using precedent to guide the application of the law. This type of reasoning requires critical thinking skills to evaluate arguments, assess evidence, and draw logical conclusions based on established legal frameworks.
Relevance: Relevance refers to the quality of being closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand. In reasoning and argumentation, relevance is crucial for ensuring that the evidence or premises presented directly support the conclusion being drawn, maintaining a logical flow in the argument.
Scientific Reasoning: Scientific reasoning is a systematic approach to understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and logical deduction. It involves forming hypotheses, conducting experiments to test those hypotheses, and drawing conclusions based on the evidence gathered. This method is essential for evaluating the strength and relevance of analogical arguments, where conclusions are drawn based on comparisons between different scenarios or phenomena.
Similarity: Similarity refers to the degree to which two or more things share common characteristics, making them comparable. In the context of analogical arguments, similarity is crucial as it helps to establish connections between different entities, enabling the transfer of knowledge or reasoning from one to the other. The more similar the compared cases are, the stronger the argument typically becomes, as it increases the likelihood that conclusions drawn from one case will hold true for the other.
Strong analogy: A strong analogy is a comparison between two different things that highlights their similarities in a significant and relevant way, often used to support an argument or make a point clearer. This type of analogy is particularly effective when the similarities between the two things being compared are substantial and directly related to the context of the argument being presented, making the comparison persuasive and compelling.
Target: In the context of evaluating analogical arguments, a target refers to the specific subject or entity being examined or analyzed for similarities with another subject or entity, known as the source. The effectiveness of an analogical argument often depends on how closely related the target is to the source in relevant aspects. When comparing a target and a source, it's essential to identify shared characteristics that can support the conclusion drawn from the analogy.
Weak Analogy: A weak analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is based on a comparison between two things that are not sufficiently similar to support the conclusion drawn. This type of reasoning fails because the differences between the two subjects undermine the validity of the argument, making it less persuasive. Understanding weak analogies is essential in evaluating arguments, as they can lead to faulty conclusions and poor decision-making.