The premises must represent significant similarities for the conclusion to be credible.
Structure of Analogical Arguments
Basic Structure:
[Object A] is similar to [Object B] in certain relevant aspects.
[Object B] has [Feature X].
Therefore, [Object A] probably has [Feature X].
Evaluating Analogical Arguments
Key Questions:
Are the similarity premises true?
Are the similarities relevant to the conclusion?
Are there any critical differences that undermine the analogy?
Examples:
Compare managing incurable opioid addiction to managing diabetes:
Premise: Both require continuous medical management.
Premise: Regular insulin injections enable diabetic patients to lead normal lives.
Conclusion: Regular opioid injections could allow addicts to lead normal lives.
Evaluation may include checking medical and social implications to confirm or disprove the analogy.
Making a Criticism
Identify Flaws:
Examine if the premises accurately portray both objects.
Point out any critical differences.
Example Criticism:
Managing diabetes with insulin is medically supervised and relatively free of social stigma, whereas managing opioid addiction with regular opioid injections may face significant challenges such as social stigma and risk of abuse.
Practice Application
Steps to Practice:
Identify the two analogous subjects (A and B).
Spot the statement of general similarity.
Identify the similarity premises and the conclusion premise.
Use the key evaluation questions to assess the strength of the analogy.
Examples of Analogical Arguments from Exercises
Example 1:
Argument: Laws governing speed limits on roads can be used as an analogy for setting age limits for alcohol consumption.
Premises:
Both deal with risk and public safety.
Speed limits reduce accidents; age limits could reduce alcohol-related harm.
Conclusion: Like speed limits, age limits are a necessary regulation for public safety.
Critical Question:
Does risk management in road safety directly correlate with substance control and personal freedom issues?
Critiquing Analogies in Exercises
Practice Example:
Argument: Treating employees with the same motivational incentives can be compared to training animals with treats.
Premises:
Both humans and animals respond positively to rewards.
Treat-based training improves animal performance; motivational incentives could enhance employee performance.
Conclusion: Using motivational incentives is a fully effective way to improve employee performance.
Critical Analysis:
Human motivation might involve more complex psychological factors, and treating humans as animals could oversimplify the analogy and ignore human individuality.