Fallacies-False+Analogy

=**//False Analogy//** =

Analogy: clear comparison between 2 things P: A has P, X, Y and Z  P: B has X, Y and Z.  C: Hence B must have P as well. Trouble with this analogy is that it goes too far  to highlight the similarities between both objects. Good analogies work because X, Y, and Z are really common attirbutes that they share False analogy when the analogy stretches beyond  Analogies only compare objects that resemble each other in some way  <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Just because A shares XYZ doesn't mean they would share the same for everything. <span class="author-g-oksq0976yxt20kmx" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Abuse of analogy <span class="author-g-z122z85tv988pv7wp2xj" style="background-color: #b3fff1; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">You claim a resemblance beyond what your argument really allows. <span class="author-g-6eyq6fpdpt0blz122zea" style="background-color: #b3fff1; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">The problem is in the argument that the only thing B shares with A is XYZ, so you can't claim they share P as well <span class="author-g-lel5xoghois3rfou" style="background-color: #cbffb3; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">In an analogy, 2 objects/events/entities (A & B) are claimed to be similar. If A has a certain characteristic, then B, which is said to be similar to A, must also have that characteristic. However, analogies are inherently limited and we should carefully examine arguments that rely on analogies to see how far the similarities actually hold. A false analogy arises in an argument when A & B are not similar in a relevant sense and hence the alleged characteristic is not really shared by both A & B. <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">The two objects are not identical. They only resemble in some ways. The argument is weak because <span class="author-g-k5ewx61950txr8k0" style="background-color: #ffc6c6; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">it offers no other reasons for us to believe that P is a shared object other than because they share X, Y, and Z <span class="author-g-7dekbbwdsmc5xs7b" style="background-color: #c6e7ff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Cannot conclude that P is a common property just because, X, Y and Z are common properties of A and B.    <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P1; people are like dogs (dogs are cuter!)  <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P2: they share some of the same attribute (e.g. food, shelter, nutrition)  <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">C: they respond best to clear discipline <span class="author-g-pom13t6nl6j7ly6t" style="background-color: #ffd9fb; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P1: Grass and shoes both can be green. <span class="author-g-pom13t6nl6j7ly6t" style="background-color: #ffd9fb; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P2: Grass is a living thing. <span class="author-g-pom13t6nl6j7ly6t" style="background-color: #ffd9fb; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">C: Therefore, shoes, like grass, are living things. <span class="author-g-levtz122zu23pg4t0plj" style="background-color: #ffe2bf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P1: Employees are like nails <span class="author-g-levtz122zu23pg4t0plj" style="background-color: #ffe2bf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P2: Nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work  <span class="author-g-levtz122zu23pg4t0plj" style="background-color: #ffe2bf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">C: Employees need to be hit in the head to work  <span class="author-g-levtz122zu23pg4t0plj url" style="background-color: #ffe2bf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"><span style="cursor: pointer !important;">[] <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">explain what the analogy is (what is A and what is B) <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">talk about how they are similar (any analogy must be on the basis of some common features) <span class="author-g-7cys6g4glmre3yfg" style="background-color: #b3fff1; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> - mention the common features  <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">how the fallacies commited by over extending the analogy — why is that this last feature which is claimed in the conclusion is clearly false or may not be true (true for one, but not the other)  <span class="author-g-k5ewx61950txr8k0" style="background-color: #ffc6c6; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Step 1: Explain the analogy <span class="author-g-a7eflg810hb6fe2r" style="background-color: #fffcbf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">, point out the resemblance <span class="author-g-em4mpe9yr0pchxyz122z" style="background-color: #b3fff1; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">s  <span class="author-g-a7eflg810hb6fe2r" style="background-color: #fffcbf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Step 2: <span class="author-g-k5ewx61950txr8k0" style="background-color: #ffc6c6; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Even though the resemblance is true, it is not good enough to <span class="author-g-em4mpe9yr0pchxyz122z" style="background-color: #b3fff1; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">conclude that both dogs and humans are the same. <span class="author-g-a7eflg810hb6fe2r" style="background-color: #fffcbf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Marks allocation: <span class="author-g-6eyq6fpdpt0blz122zea" style="background-color: #b3fff1; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">1m: loc <span class="author-g-eiace99x62ajchlm" style="background-color: #dcccff; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">a <span class="author-g-6eyq6fpdpt0blz122zea" style="background-color: #b3fff1; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">ting fallacy in the text <span class="author-g-a7eflg810hb6fe2r" style="background-color: #fffcbf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">, giving correct line numbers  <span class="author-g-6eyq6fpdpt0blz122zea" style="background-color: #b3fff1; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">1m: translating into argument (P, C)  <span class="author-g-a7eflg810hb6fe2r" style="background-color: #fffcbf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">1m: naming fallacy correctly  <span class="author-g-a7eflg810hb6fe2r" style="background-color: #fffcbf; cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">2m: explanation http://piratepad.net/fallacies311 <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">E.g. <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">P1: Both Alice and Betty are girls. <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">P2: Alicelikes trucks, <span style="display: block; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">C: Betty likes trucks as well.

(This analogy fails because although Alice and Betty shares 1 similarity—they are both girls—that does not mean that they are similar in all other ways—liking trucks.)

This is false because even though they are girls, doesn't mean they have to like the same thing, no reason to believe that betty will share the same liking of trucks. Argument has over-extended the analogy and is guilty of committing the fallacy.