Chapter 10 ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS

Summary

• To draw an analogy is simply to indicate that there are similarities between two or more
things.
• Analogical reasoning is one of the most fundamental tools used in creating an argument.
It can be analyzed as a type of inductive argument—it is a matter of probability, based on
experience, and it can be quite persuasive.
• An analogical argument is analyzed by revealing the general framework of the argument.
The argument lists the characteristics that two (or more) things have in common and
concludes that the things being compared probably have some other characteristic in
common.
• If an analogical argument is strong, then it raises the probability that the conclusion is
true.
• Four criteria are used to analyze the first premise of an analogical argument: (a) The
strength of an analogical argument is related to the number of things referred to in the
first premise. (b) The strength of an analogical argument is related to the variety of things
referred to in the first premise. (c) The strength of an analogical argument is related to the
number of characteristics that are claimed to be similar between the things being
compared. (d) The strength of an analogical argument is related to the relevance of the
characteristics referred to in the first premise.
• Disanalogies: To point out differences between two or more things.
• Counteranalogy: A new, competing argument—one that compares the thing in question
to something else.
• If you can point to something that is a direct result of an analogy, but that is unacceptable
to the person presenting the analogy, then you can put that person in a difficult position.
An unintended consequence of an analogy is something that is a direct result of an
analogy, but that is unacceptable to the person presenting the analogy.

Key Terms

analogical argument • analogical reasoning • analogy • counteranalogy • disanalogies •

unintended consequences

Exercises 10A
I.
1. Premise 1: X, humans, and Y, dolphins, have the following attributes in common: a, dolphins have
brains almost identical in size to humans; b, dolphins have a body size nearly identical to humans; c,
dolphins can understand verbal commands and sign language instructions, which humans can do quite
easily; d, like humans, dolphins have a strong sense of self-identity, because it has been shown that
dolphins can recognize themselves in mirrors and when shown their image on a TV screen.
Premise 2: We know that X, humans, are e, capable of highly abstract thinking by their ability to
understand and use complex concepts.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is highly probable that Y, dolphins, are e, capable of highly abstract thinking.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, d, in common.
X has e.
Therefore, probably Y has e.
2. Premise 1: X, humans , and Y chimpanzees, have the following attributes in common: a, are certainly
capable of feeling pain; b, they will avoid negative feedback (electrical shocks) in a laboratory setting
when given the opportunity to do so; c, when one is injured others will recognize the pain behavior and
try to comfort and help the injured member of the group; d, when given pain-relief medicine soon after an
injury, they connect the medicine to the relief from pain, because when injured again they will give the
sign for the medicine.
Premise 2: X, has e: there are legal and ethical constraints that protect humans from experimentation
without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y, chimpanzees, should have e: be afforded those same protections.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, d, in common.

X has e.
Therefore, probably Y has e.

3. Premise 1: X, dogs, and Y, humans, have the following attributes in common: a, they both have killed
or severely injured a human for no apparent reason.
Premise 2: X has b: When a dog has killed or severely injured a human for no apparent reason we feel
justified in killing the dog in order to stop it from doing more damage.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y has b: we should feel justified in killing humans in order to stop
them from doing more damage.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a in common.

X has b.
Therefore, probably Y has b.

4. Premise 1: X, Y, and Z, have the following attributes in common: a, all three countries have large
populations; b, are highly industrialized; c, are in the top five in economic strength among the world’s
countries; d, all three countries are democracies; e, have separate branches of government; and f, a large
prison system.
Premise 2: X and Y have g: strict gun control legislation.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Z should have g: If the United States wants to lower its homicide rate
it has to pass strict gun control legislation.

The structure of the argument:

X, Y, and Z have a, b, c, d, e, and f, in common.

X and Y have g.
Therefore, probably Z should have g.

5. Premise 1: X, the junior, and Y, the fifth grader, have the following attributes in common: a, eat the
same food; b, have their own bedrooms; c, get the same amount of allowance.
Premise 2: X has d: has to do housework.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y should have d: has to do housework.

The structure of the argument:

 X and Y have a, b, c, in common.
X has d.
Therefore, probably Y should have d.

6. Premise 1: X, the earliest agreed upon fossil of a human, and Y, the bones found in central China,
have the following attributes in common: a, the cranial area is the same; b, the jawbone matches human
fossils of a later date; c, crude tools were found near the bones in each case; d, the teeth match.
Premise 2: X has e: the oldest recognized bones have been declared to be human.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y has e: they should be declared to be human.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, d, in common.

X has e.
Therefore, probably Y has e.

7. Premise 1: X, big businesses, and Y, the worm farmer, have the following attributes in common: a,
have expenses; b, pay for help; c, buy equipment; d, purchase supplies: e, suffer losses; f, pay taxes; g,
pay utilities; h, subject to the laws of supply and demand.
Premise 2: X has i: they can get money for not growing crops.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y should get i: get money for not growing worms.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, in common.

X has i.
Therefore, probably Y should have i.

8. Premise 1: X, humans, and Y, some computer programs, have the following attributes in common: a,
are used to help diagnose diseases; b, predict economic trends; c, predict the winners in horse races and
all other sports; d, have been shown the ability to learn from experience and adapt to new situations; e,
and f, can understand language and communicate concepts and ideas.
Premise 2: X have g: are considered to possess consciousness.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y should have g: considered to possess consciousness.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, d, e, f, in common.

X has g.
Therefore, probably Y has g.

9. Premise 1: X, fruit, and Y, Chocolate Peanut Gooies, have the following attributes in common: a,
provides energy; b, roughage; c, sugar; d, citric acid; e, vitamins; f, minerals.
Premise 2: X has g: is good for your health.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y has g: is good for your health.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, d, e, f, in common.
X has g.
Therefore, probably Y has g.
10. Premise 1: X, three prior films, and Y, the new movie, have the following attributes in common: a,
have newcomers in the starring roles; b, were based on novels by Joel Francis Hitchmann; c, opened in
summer; d, have huge marketing tie-ins.
Premise 2: X has e: each of the films grossed over $550 million.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y has e: this new film will do about the same amount of business.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, d, in common.

X has e.
Therefore, probably Y has e.

11. Premise 1: X, the four previous kinds of fruit, and Y, the pears, have the following attributes in
common: a, I already ate the four previous kinds of fruit, and b, they are all from her fruit stand.
Premise 2: X has c: I enjoyed all of them.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y has c.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, in common.

X has c.
Therefore, probably Y has c.

12. Premise 1: X, the four previous philosophy courses I took, and Y, Philosophy 105, have the
following attribute in common: a, they are philosophy courses
Premise 2: X has b: I got an A in all four courses.
Conclusion: I expect to get an A in Philosophy 105.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a in common.

X has b.
Therefore, probably Y has b.

13. Premise 1: X, fruit trees and vegetables, and Y, seaweed, have the following attribute in common: a,
they are plants.
Premise 2: X has b: adding fertilizer helps them to grow better.
Conclusion: Adding fertilizer should help seaweed grow better.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a in common.

X has b.
Therefore, probably Y has b.

II.
1. Premise 1: X, planes with two engines, and Y, nations, have the following attribute in common: a,
they both have two crucial components.
Premise 2: We know that X, planes with two engines, e, do not take off when one engine isn’t working.
 Conclusion: Therefore, probably Y, nations, are e, not capable of taking off economically in a
competitive world without utilizing the talent of women.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a in common.

X has e.
Therefore, probably Y has e.

2. Premise 1: X, a good country breakfast and Y, a good first sentence, have the following attributes in
common: a, at its best we do not expect too much of them; b, they are simple; c, they are basic but
substantial.
Premise 2: We know that X, a good country breakfast is d, is nourishing.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is highly probable that Y, a good first sentence, is nourishing to the
imagination.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, in common.

X has d.
Therefore, probably Y has d.

3. Premise 1: X, surgeons, lawyers, and carpenters, and Y, students, have the following attributes in
common: a, they need to perform well; b, we expect them to know where to look for answers, c, they
must be able to solve problems.
Premise 2: We know that X, surgeons, lawyers, and carpenters, are d, allowed to use whatever means
necessary to achieve their goals.
Conclusion: Therefore, Y, students, should be d, allowed to use their textbooks during an examination.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, in common.

X has d.
Therefore, probably Y has d.

4. Premise 1: X, colonial peoples and Y, adolescents, have the following attributes in common: a, they
are economically dependent on the dominant society; b, they are the beneficiaries of the dominant
society’s philanthropy, c, they are partly dependent because of their immature stage of development, d,
they are partly dependent because of restrictions placed upon them by the dominant society
Premise 2: We know that X, colonial peoples, are e, encouraged to be economically irresponsible
because their sources of income are undependable and do not derive from their personal qualities.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is highly probable that Y, the “teen-ager” is e, encouraged to be economically
irresponsible because his sources of income are undependable and do not derive from his personal
qualities.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, d, in common.

X has e.
Therefore, probably Y has e.
5. Premise 1: X, my assertion and belief that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot
revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, and Y, received dogmas, have the following attributes in
common: a, they are purposely devised to be incapable of disproof by physical and scientific methods; b,
based on pure belief without any physical evidence to support them; c, since the assertions cannot be
disproved it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt them.
Premise 2: We know that for X, d, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is probable that for Y, a received dogma, d, it should rightly be thought to be
talking nonsense.

The structure of the argument:

X and Y have a, b, c, in common.

X has d.
Therefore, probably Y has d.

Exercises 10B

I.
1. (a) Number of entities: Dolphins and humans (we are not told how many dolphins were studied).
(b) Variety of instances: We are not given specific information on the age, sex, or species of the
dolphins studied.
(c) Number of characteristics: Brain size; body size; ability to understand verbal commands; ability to
understand sign language; strong sense of self-identity.
(d) Relevancy: Of all the characteristics mentioned, body size seems the least relevant to the question
of highly abstract thinking.

2. (a) Number of entities: Chimpanzees and humans (we are not told how many chimpanzees were
studied).
(b) Variety of instances: We are not given any information on the age, sex, or variety of species of
chimpanzees studied.
(c) Number of characteristics: They avoid electrical shocks; comfort each other; seek pain relief
medicine.
(d) Relevancy: All the characteristics seem to be relevant to the assertion that chimpanzees are capable
of feeling pain.

3. (a) Number of entities: Humans who kill or injure other humans, and dogs that kill or injure humans.
(b) Variety of instances: Apparently, any breed, age, or sex of dog. Apparently, any human, regardless
of sex, or national origin (age is not specified).
(c) Number of characteristics: Killing or injuring for no apparent reason; psychological reasons are to
be dismissed; genetic makeup is the cause of the behavior; locking them up doesn’t solve the root
problem.
(d) Relevancy: The overall contention is that we should feel justified in killing humans to stop their
violent behavior. Psychological factors can be relevant for explaining some human behavior and should
not be dismissed too easily without further argumentation. Genetic causation of behavior is not well
understood and does not exclude environmental factors affecting behavior.

4. (a) Number of entities: England, Japan, and the United States.

(b) Variety of instances: There is not much variety in the kinds of countries being compared (large,
highly industrialized countries). Countries with substantially different points of comparison, but those
with strict gun control legislation, would add to the variety.
(c) Number of characteristics: Homicide rate; population; industrialized; economic strength;
democracies; separate branches of government; prison system.
(d) Relevancy: The characteristics mentioned seem at least relevant to the question of homicide rates.

5. (a) Number of entities: The high school student and the fifth grader.
(b)Variety of instances: Just two people are being compared.
(c) Number of characteristics: Food; bedroom; allowance.
(d) Relevancy: They seem relevant to the question of chores.

6. (a) Number of entities: The bones recently found in China and those of other known fossils of humans.
(b) Variety of instances: The bones found in China are being compared to a variety of bones found
around the world, dated from a variety of eras in human history.
(c) Number of characteristics: Cranial area; jaw bone; tools found near the bones; teeth.
(d) Relevancy: The characteristics seem relevant to the question of whether or not the bones are from a
human ancestor.

7. (a) Number of entities: The worm grower and the many companies getting government subsidies not to
grow crops.
(b) Variety of instances: There are presumably a variety of kinds of businesses that get subsidies.
(c) Number of characteristics: Expenses; help; equipment; supplies; losses; taxes; utilities; supply and
demand.
(d) Relevancy: The characteristics are relevant to the extent that the worm company is similar to the big
farming companies in many ways.

8. (a) Number of entities: Computer programs and humans.

(b) Variety of instances: Computer programs are described that can perform many different kinds of
functions and display various levels of analytical ability.
(c) Number of characteristics: Help diagnose diseases; predict economic trends; predict the results of
sporting events; calculate and analyze; learn from experience; adapt to new situations; understand
language; communicate concepts and ideas; play chess.
(d) Relevancy: The characteristics seem relevant to the question of whether or not something is
conscious. However, they may point to some necessary conditions for consciousness (without
which something cannot be conscious), but together they may not be sufficient for consciousness.

9. (a) Number of entities: Fruit and Chocolate Peanut Gooies.

(b) Variety of instances: It is assumed that many kinds of fruit are referred to in the example.
(c) Number of characteristics: Providing energy; roughage; sugars; citric acid; vitamins; minerals.
(d) Relevancy: The characteristics listed are relevant to the issue of health.

10. (a) Number of entities: The new movie and the previous sci-fi films directed by Billy Kuberg.
(b) Variety of instances: All the movies are in the same genre.
(c) Number of characteristics: Newcomers in the starring roles; based on novels by the same author;
opened in summer; huge marketing tie-ins.
(d) Relevancy: These characteristics are probably related to how much money a film is likely to make.

11. (a) Number of entities: The pears, apples, oranges, peaches, and cherries.
(b) Variety of instances: All are fruit.
(c) Number of characteristics: All from the same fruit stand.
(d) Relevancy: This characteristic is probably relevant to the enjoyment of the fruit.

12. (a) Number of entities: Philosophy 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105.
(b) Variety of instances: All the courses are in philosophy.
 (c) Number of characteristics: Just philosophy courses.
(d) Relevancy: This characteristic is probably related to the grade the student is likely to get.

13. (a) Number of entities: Fruit trees, vegetables plants, and seaweed.
(b) Variety of instances: Some are grown on land and some in water.
(c) Number of characteristics: All are plants.
(d) Relevancy: This characteristic is probably related to plant growth.

II.
1. (a) Number of entities: Planes with two engines; nations.
(b) Variety of instances: Planes differ in size, structure and use; nations differ in size, economies,
cultures, and languages.
(c) Number of characteristics: Planes operating with one engine; countries that do not employ
educated, talented women.
(d) Relevancy: The characteristic of a plane needing two engines to operate effectively, and a nation
needing to use all its qualified workers to compete in the world’s marketplace is probably related to both
instances.

2. (a) Number of entities: Presumably lots of country breakfasts and opening sentences.
(b) Variety of instances: Probably several kinds of country breakfasts and numerous opening
sentences.
(c) Number of characteristics: Three are mentioned.
(d) Relevancy: The expectation of what they are meant to accomplish seem relevant to their respective
tasks.

3. (a) Number of entities: Many surgeons, lawyers, carpenters, and students.

(b) Variety of instances: surgeons, lawyers, carpenters, and students are quite different in their goals,
duties, and professions.
(c) Number of characteristics: Three are mentioned.
(d) Relevancy: The characteristics are relevant to the expectations of each profession.

4. (a) Number of entities: Many colonial peoples and adolescents.

(b) Variety of instances: The colonial people differed in countries, economies, geography, natural
resources, and colonial occupier; adolescents differ in economic situations, education, and geography,
among other things.
(c) Number of characteristics: Four are mentioned.
(d) Relevancy: The characteristics seem relevant to the question at hand.

5. (a) Number of entities: Many received dogmas and one contrived assertion.
(b) Variety of instances: Received dogmas differ in their age and popularity.
(c) Number of characteristics: Three are mentioned.
(d) Relevancy: All the characteristics are relevant to the point being made.

III.
1. Weakens the argument. The number of entities in the premises is now substantially decreased.
2. Weakens the argument. This introduces a significant difference between the instance in the conclusion
and the instances in the premises.
3. Irrelevant to the argument. Car color is not relevant to the brake system.
4. Weakens the argument. This introduces a significant difference between the instance in the conclusion
and the instances in the premises.
5. Since we are not offered any information regarding the average time it took for the brakes to fail, this
does not weaken the argument. The evidence is strong enough to warrant having your brakes replaced.

Exercises 10C

I.
1. (a) Disanalogies: Humans display complex speech patterns and can create completely new forms;
mathematical skills, which are taken as a hallmark of abstract thinking, are not mentioned as one of the
dolphins’ abilities; poetry, art, music and other aesthetic abilities have not been shown to exist in
dolphins.
(b) Counteranalogy: Dolphins are more like dogs. They both have highly sensitive senses of smell; they
both have extraordinary sensitivity to sounds that humans cannot detect; they both can learn to react
correctly to certain signs or verbal commands; they both seem to bond well with humans; they both are
able to learn tricks of performance. Since there is no evidence that dogs are capable of highly abstract
thinking, dolphins probably do not have that ability either.
(c) Unintended consequences: If dolphins are capable of highly abstract thinking, then perhaps they
should be afforded rights similar to humans. They should not be kept and raised in captivity and be
subject to experiments like those mentioned in the article. The researchers should get informed consent
agreements with the dolphins before embarking on any further experiments.

2. (a) Disanalogies: The overall conclusion is not that chimpanzees are capable of feeling pain—the
evidence certainly seems to support that contention. The goal of the argument is to show that
chimpanzees should be afforded the same protections that humans have when they are the subjects of
experiments. Some relevant differences between humans and chimpanzees are the following: speech;
writing; art; science; complex inventions; sense of history (cultural, governmental, linguistic, etc.);
mathematics.
(b) Counteranalogy: Chimpanzees are more like most other animals than they are like humans. Most
animals live in simple groups; they are dominated by the most physically powerful members of their
group; they have rudimentary (at best) sounds by which they can communicate; they survive day-to-day
with no sense of purpose or of the future. Since none of these other groups have been afforded rights, the
chimpanzees should be denied these as well.
(c) Unintended consequences: If the ability to feel pain is sufficient for an organism to be afforded
rights, then any organism that feels pain should be extended the protections that humans have. All
experimentation on living organisms, no matter how simple their structure, must cease at once.
3. (a) Disanalogies: As mentioned in the earlier analysis, environmental factors must be considered.
Humans are usually given numerous chances to change and are often successful. Many dogs can be
trained to change their behavior, if given the correct setting and reinforcement techniques (environmental
changes). We often kill animals because of our ignorance of the causes of their behavior, not because we
think it is impossible for them to change.
(b) Counteranalogy: Dogs are more like children or people with diseases. Like children, dogs do not
understand the consequences of their behavior. They are not capable of understanding the difference
between right and wrong. In addition, dogs are like people with diseases; we don’t punish or kill them, we
try to cure them. We should try to cure or change dogs that are violent, not kill them.
(c) Unintended consequences: Any human that kills or injures another human for no apparent reason
should be killed. Corporation, or white-collar, crimes have accounted for thousands of deaths in the name
of profit. We should kill anyone at any level of management having any involvement with those deaths.
Also, why stop with adults? Children of any age who injure or kill another human should be killed as
well. Why wait until they do it again? It’s obvious that it is in their genes and it can’t be changed.

4. (a) Disanalogies: England and Japan both have monarchies, while the United States does not and
never has had a monarchy. US culture and history is much younger than that of England and Japan. U.S.
citizens historically have, and traditionally demand, considerable individual freedom. The U.S.
constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. In England, only special police carry weapons.
(b) Counteranalogy: The United States is like children and adolescents. All three groups are young and
do not have a lot of history from which to learn. They are strong and do not like to be controlled too
much. They want to learn from their own mistakes. Being young, they are not yet constrained by
tradition. This enables them to make unexpected discoveries and invent novel ways of interacting with the
world. They are fearless, sometimes reckless, and adventurous. This has its drawbacks, but it also has its
rewards. We should not constrain children and adolescents too much; otherwise, we will crush that
individuality. Of course, there is a price to pay for this freedom. But we are willing to pay for it.
(c) Unintended consequences: Since we cannot be certain that strict gun control is the cause (we
mentioned many differences between the countries in the disanalogies part of the answer), the United
States should adopt a monarchy. Perhaps that will lower the homicide rate.

5. (a) Disanalogies: The age difference is considerable when one factors in the probable difference in
size, strength, capabilities, stamina, and level of responsibility.
(b) Counteranalogy: The high school student is more like the parents. The high school student is nearly
an adult, and adults are expected to accept responsibility. They are expected to take care of a house and
everything in it. They are expected to relieve children of the burdens of adulthood and let the children be
children.
(c) Unintended consequences: Since the high school student wants equal treatment, then perhaps the
parents should make both children go to bed or be in the house at the same time at night. Since the fifth
grader is not permitted to drive the car, then the high school student should not have that privilege either.

6. (a) Disanalogies: Perhaps there is a gap between these fossils and the next oldest found in China.
Other finds around the world are gradual, meaning the most recent discoveries usually do not predate the
known oldest ones by such a wide gap.
(b) Counteranalogy: These bones are more like an ape-like creature known to exist at the same time.
Although the cranial size is the same, the slope of the forehead is closer to that of the apes. The eye
sockets resemble the apes’, as do the cheekbones. These bones are likely to be a newly discovered species
of ape.
(c) Unintended consequences: If the bones really are the oldest known evidence of humans, then
anthropologists will have to abandon their present theories of where humans originated.

7. (a) Disanalogies: The differences between the worm grower and the big farming companies include
such things as the need and demand for the product, and the potentially disastrous effects on the economy
if the large companies fail. This heavily impacts employment, bankruptcy, and GNP.
(b) Counteranalogy: The worm grower is like any business that produces a product that is not necessary
for humans to survive. All of those businesses supply something that is not essential for the citizenry.
Since those businesses are not subsidized by the government for not producing, the worm grower should
not be subsidized.
(c) Unintended consequences: If the worm farmer is correct, then any company should be able to stop
producing products. Of course, the effect on the economy is not important, just so every company has the
same right to not produce and get paid.

8. (a) Disanalogies: Computers and computer programs are inventions and, so far, completely inorganic.
Humans are not inventions; they are made of organic material. Conscious humans are alive, while
computer programs do not possess life. The processing of zeros and ones, however swift, does not
constitute understanding.
(b) Counteranalogy: Computer programs are like thermostats and car seat belt detectors. A thermostat
can turn a heater or air-conditioner on or off to regulate the temperature, because that is its intended
function. When the recording in your car announces that your seat belt is not fastened (or your door is
ajar), there is no understanding on the part of the car. The thermostat does not know what the temperature
is in the same way a human knows or understands something. Computers act like other machinery or
inventions. Since thermostats and seat belt detectors are not conscious, neither are computer programs.
(c) Unintended consequences: Human consciousness is considered by most people to reveal the
existence of a mind. If some computer programs are designated as being conscious, then we must grant
that those computer programs have a mind. If someone deletes one of those programs from his or her
computer, then he or she is guilty of destroying a mind. Legal and ethical considerations must then be
considered to protect those computer program minds.

9. (a) Disanalogies: The candy bar probably contains numerous artificial ingredients whose health
benefits may be questioned. Fruit contains no artificial ingredients. The sugar that grows in fruit is not the
same as that put in most candy bars.
(b) Counteranalogy: The candy bar is like cotton candy. They both taste good to most people, usually
because they contain so much sugar (or artificial sugar substitute). They both provide a quick burst of
energy. This kind of energy causes a backlash when its effects wear off. The person usually feels
lethargic, and his or her attention and focus is disrupted. Both foods are artificial and not organic, natural
products. If cotton candy is not healthy, then neither are Chocolate Peanut Gooies.
(c) Unintended consequences: Since the candy bar is just as good as fruit, we can eliminate the need for
fruit in our diets and substitute the candy bar to meet our minimum daily requirements.

10. (a) Disanalogies: Each new movie is being compared to the previous ones. After a while, there is a
greater chance the newest one will not be original enough to be accepted as interesting. The previous
movies did not have to be compared to as many as this one. The economic situation may be different as
this time. People’s interest in sci-fi movies may be fading. Any of these factors can weaken the
probability of the conclusion being true.
(b) Counteranalogy: This film is like the newest one by Mary Myers. After running off a string of three
hugely successful comedies, her fourth flopped. She followed the same formula as her first three, but the
public was not amused. The newest one by Kuberg is likely to flop as well.
(c) Unintended consequences: If the director is continually successful with these kinds of film, then he
may never be given the opportunity to do any other kind. His artistic development might be stunted if he
is not accepted as being able to create anything other than sci-fi films, no matter how successful they may
be.

11. (a) Disanalogies: The pears might come from a different place than the other fruit. The pears might
be unripe, or overripe.
(b) Counteranalogy: The pears are like the pear fruit pies I cooked for you. You did not like the pear
fruit pie, so you probably will not like the pears from her stand.
(c) Unintended consequences: You might enjoy eating the pears, but remember that you are allergic to
pears. You will pay a high price for that temporary enjoyment.

12. (a) Disanalogies: Philosophy 101, 102, 103, and 104 were about the history of philosophy, but 105 is
a symbolic logic course.
(b) Counteranalogy: The teacher for Philosophy 105 requires three long argumentative papers each
semester. You do not like to write papers, so you will probably not get an A in the course.
(c) Unintended consequences: You probably will get an A, but the teacher of that course requires all the
A students to give an oral presentation of their research. You do not like to speak in public.

13. (a) Disanalogies: All the plants that the fertilizer worked on were grown on land. It has not yet been
tried on plants grown in water.
(b) Counteranalogy: Seaweed grows in saltwater. It has been shown that the fertilizer does not work in
saltwater. So, adding the fertilizer will probably not help the seaweed to grow better.
 (c) Unintended consequences: The fertilizer alters the genetic structure of the plants. If you alter the
genetic structure of seaweed, it might disrupt the ecosystem in the sea and prove harmful.

II.
1. (a) Disanalogies: Airplane engines and humans are quite different—in size, function,
structure, and motivation in the case of humans. Airplane engines are mechanical; humans are
organic.
(b) Counteranalogy: Nations are like genes. The dominant gene wins out, and the recessive gene
is not used. So, only one aspect of a nation is needed to compete.
(c) Unintended consequences: When engines fail they are discarded or put on the scrap heap. So, if
humans fail, do we discard them?

2. (a) Disanalogies: A good country breakfast and a good first sentence are quite different—in function,
need, and makeup. A good country breakfast is organic; a good first sentence is a language construction.
(b) Counteranalogy: A good first sentence needs to surprise readers in order to get their attention. A
good country breakfast just needs to provide a lot of calories and it should not be too exotic. So, a good
first sentence needs to be different to stand out.
(c) Unintended consequences: A good country breakfast is loaded with calories and often fat. So a good
first sentence should be loaded with fat (excessive verbiage).

3. (a) Disanalogies: When surgeons, lawyers, and carpenters are performing on the job, they are not
being tested to see what they know; they have already been tested in order to get their certifications.
However, the purpose of testing students is to see precisely what they know.
(b) Counteranalogy: Students are like machines. We do extensive quality-control testing on machines to
see if they can perform. Therefore, we need to do extensive quality-control testing on students to see if
they can perform.
(c) Unintended consequences: When surgeons, lawyers, and carpenters fail, they are often sued and lose
their licensing. So, students who fail should be sued and dismissed from school.

4. (a) Disanalogies: Colonial peoples and adolescents are quite different—in age, educational
opportunities, and the fact that colonial peoples were usually colonized by force.
(b) Counteranalogy: Colonial peoples are not expected to achieve much and not expected to eventually
run the country. However, adolescents are expected to achieve success and eventually support their
parents. So, adolescents eventually need an independent source of income derived from their personal
qualities.
(c) Unintended consequences: Colonial peoples are not allowed the freedom to create their own wealth
and become independent. So, adolescents should not be expected to create their own wealth and become
independent.

5. (a) Disanalogies: The assertion and belief that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot
revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit and received dogmas are different in the main sense that the
received dogmas have long histories of being believed; also, received dogmas are usually classified as
“religions” and are established beliefs that are protected by many democratic societies. Many received
dogmas are a source of comfort and hope for the followers.
(b) Counteranalogy: The teapot belief offers no hope of an afterlife and provides no moral guides to
acting as a human. Therefore, it will not offer hope or comfort to people.
(c) Unintended consequences: At most times in history there were scientific hypotheses that could not
be tested because the technology was not available. Given this, if we are to discard any belief that cannot
be disproved, then some of theoretical science will have to be discarded; for example, if string theory is
not testable, then physicists should abandon it.
Logic Challenge: Beat the Cheat

After the man places the two cards face down and shuffles them, you pretend to think for a while. You
then take one of the cards and quickly put it in your pocket without revealing what is on it. You then tell
the cheat to turn over the card that is on the table. He blushes and hesitates, but the crowd starts getting
agitated, so he is forced to turn over a card you and he both know is blank. You announce that since his
card was blank, the card in your pocket must have an X on it. The cheat does not ask to see it since that
would expose his scam.