Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, where perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. [ 1 ]
Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share. [1]In logic, it is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction.
For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and B. Socrates was like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C. Socrates was mortal is an example of argument by analogy because the reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in the conclusion, namely that Socrates was mortal.
Like most daunting challenges, the LSAT is best approached by breaking the test down into manageable parts. The most common way to divide the logical reasoning section is by question type.
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. [54] Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample ...
Analogy in law is a method of resolving issues on which there is no previous authority by using argument from analogy.Analogy in general involves an inference drawn from one particular situation to another based on similarity, but legal analogy is distinguished by the need to use a legally relevant basis for drawing an analogy between two situations.
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. [1]
For example, arguments based on authority may be common in courts of law but not as frequent in a classroom discussion; arguments based on analogy are often effective in political discourse, but may be problematic in a scientific discussion.