PATI, Jezen Esther B.

Legal Technique & Logic

Special Section - JD1

11.3 APPRAISING ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS

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. It is evaluated as better or
worse depending on the degree of probability with which, relying on the premises they put
forward, and their conclusions may be affirmed.
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.
CRITERIA USED TO DISTINGUISH ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS:
1. Number of entities - 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.
Examples:
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.
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.
the more instances strengthen an analogy, the fewer weaken it.
2. Variety of the instances in the premises - 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.
Examples:
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.
If my previous golden retrievers were both males and females, acquired both as puppies
from breeders and as adults from the humane society, I may be more confident that it is
their breed, not their sex or age or source, that accounts for my earlier satisfaction
the more variety there is among the instances, the stronger the analogical argument
becomes.
3. Number of similar respects - 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.
Examples:
If the dresses purchased are of same style and same price then it will give more
satisfaction.
An investor had always purchased stock in eastern oil company before, and plans to
purchase stock in and eastern oil company this year too.
The more ways housecats are similar to tigers, the likelier the conclusions about how a
tiger will act will be.
4. Relevance - Respects add to the force of the argument when they are relevant and a single
highly relevant factor contributes more to the argument than a host of irrelevant similarities.
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.
It weakens the analogical arguments. It is a way that the target subject is different from the
members of the comparison set.

Disanalogy A point of difference between the cases mentioned in the premises and the
case mentioned in the conclusion of an analogical argument.

Examples:
If a pair of shoes you plan to buy looks like those you had owned earlier, but is in fact
much cheaper and made by a different company, those disanalogies will give you reason
to doubt the satisfaction the company will provide.
Returning to the restaurant, 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.
6. Claim that the conclusion makes - 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.
Example:
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.
If all three of my friends were delighted with their auto purchases but I conclude only that I
will be satisfied with mine, then this relatively modest conclusion is more likely to be true.
arguments by analogy are improved when their conclusions are modest with respect to
their premises.
11.4 REFUTATION BY LOGICAL ANALOGY
Logical Refutation demonstration of the falseness of a judgment or proposition,
an inference or argument, or a group of hypotheses or judgments and inferences constituting a
scientific theory or part of a theory.
REFUTATION BY LOGICAL ANALOGY
In the realm on deduction - a refuting analogy for a given argument is an argument that has
the same form as the given argument but whose premises are known to be true and whose
conclusion is known to be false. The refuting analogy is known to be invalid, and the
argument under attack is also invalid.
o In the realm of inductive argument arguments, not purporting to be deductive, may be
countered by presenting other arguments that have very similar designs and whose
conclusions are known to be false.
An argument is valid if and only if its conclusion follows with certainty from its premises, since
validity is established by the form of an arguments, all arguments of the same form will have the
same status of validity or invalidity.
The technique of refutation by analogical argument is very keenly exemplified. The focus is on
the form of the two arguments. The argument under attack has the same form as that of another
argument whose unsatisfactoriness is universally understood.
o
o

You might just as well say, One could as sensibly say, The same argument might
have been made... phrases often used to signal the appearance of the presentation of a
refutation by logical analogy.
When the point of the refuting analogy is manifest no introductory phrases may be needed.

Refutation by analogy can be exceedingly effective. If the argument presented as a refuting

analogy is rotten, then it does not have the same form as that of the argument under attack, that
target argument must be wounded.

Page | 2