Question

GE 3202 –CRITICAL THINKING- SUMMER 2, 2018 Assignment 2 Evaluation of Arguments from Analogy Evaluating arguments from analogy is a matter of comparing and contrasting the analogues. It requires relying on our experience about how similar two or more things are. Based on this knowledge consider the below exercise and apply your reasoning skills. Exercise: We co-existed with the former Soviet Union when it had nuclear weapons. Therefore, we can co-exist with Iran, should it obtain nuclear weapons. a. find premise-analogue and conclusion-analogue, b. point out either it is a strong or weak argument, c. reason for the above argument, d. explain the advantages of ‘arguments from analogy’ in its implementation in critical thinking.

Answer 1

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY:

Example: We co-existed with former Soviet Union when it had nuclear weapons, therefore we can co-exist with Iran as it has nuclear weapons.

a) Premise Analogue - In this example, 'We' is the premise analogue because it is the initial analogue from which another analogue is concluded.  

Conclusion Analogue - In this example, 'co-exist' is the conclusion analogue because it is the conclusion that is derived from the premise analogue.

b) This argument is considered to be a mildly strong inductive argument.

c) An Inductive argument is that, if the premises are true, it is less likely that the conclusions are false. The example, 'We can co-exist with Iran as it has nuclear weapons', is mildly strong inductive argument because, it gives the probable truth of the conclusion.

d) The advantages of arguments from analogues is that, it enables a person to think critically using logical reasoning, decision making, enhancing interpretation skills, and to understand the analysis of conclusions from different statements.