Chapter 9 Self-Check Questions

. Pick the two ways to raise an objection to an Argument from Analogy:

Try to show the conclusion is false.

Try to show premise 1 is false.

Develop an additional Argument from Analogy for an opposing conclusion.

Try to show premise 2 is false.

. Raising an objection to premise 2 of an Argument from Analogy requires trying to identify:

A disanalogy.

A counterexample.

A relevance test.

A genuine difference.

. True or false: In order to succeed in undermining an Argument from Analogy, a disanalogy needs to identify a relevant difference but not necessarily a genuine one.

True.

False.

. A relevance test is:

A kind of objection to premise 1 of an Argument from Analogy.

A kind of objection to premise 2 of an Argument from Analogy.

A way of testing if a disanalogy used to object to an Argument from Analogy identifies a genuine difference.

A way of testing if a disanalogy used to object to an Argument from Analogy identifies a relevant difference.

. When doing a relevance test, your goal should be to re-imagine which case?

Case x -- the less controversial one, in premise 1.

Case y -- the more controversial case, in the conclusion.

. When re-imagining a case to do a relevance test, you should aim to redescribe it in a way that:

Gets rid of the difference (identified by the disanalogy) between cases x and y, and then see if your judgment about the revised case x changes or not.

Gets rid of the difference (identified by the disanalogy) between cases x and y, and then see if your judgment about case y changes or not.

Gets rid of the difference (identified by the disanalogy) between cases x and y, and then see if the revised case x is realistic (could happen in real life) or not.

. When re-imagining a case to do a relevance test, you should aim to:

Change it as radically as needed to make case x and y the same.

Change only the difference we are testing for relevance.

Change it so that it is different in ways that seem interesting to you or your audience.

. Suppose you are evaluating an Argument from Analogy, and you're considering a disanalogy that has raised against the second premise. You've used the skills from the chapter to determine that the difference identified by the disanalogy is genuine but not relevant. What does this show?

Unless there's some way to defend the argument, this shows that premise 2 is false and the argument does not give you reason to believe its conclusion is true.

The objection does not succeed in undermining the argument, so, unless there is some other better objection, the argument still stands.

The conclusion of the argument is false.

. Suppose you are evaluating an Argument from Analogy, and you're considering a disanalogy that has raised against the second premise. You've used the skills from the chapter to determine that the difference identified by the disanalogy is not genuine but it is relevant. What does this show?

Unless there's some way to defend the argument, this shows that premise 2 is false and the argument does not give you reason to believe its conclusion is true.

The objection does not succeed in undermining the argument, so, unless there is some other better objection, the argument still stands.

The conclusion of the argument is false.

. Suppose you are evaluating an Argument from Analogy, and you're considering a disanalogy that has raised against the second premise. You've used the skills from the chapter to determine that the difference identified by the disanalogy is both genuine and relevant. What does this show?

Unless there's some way to defend the argument, this shows that premise 2 is false and the argument does not give you reason to believe its conclusion is true.

The objection does not succeed in undermining the argument, so, unless there is some other better objection, the argument still stands.

The conclusion of the argument is false.

Quiz Content