EXERCISE V Using the criteria mentioned above, evaluate each...

EXERCISE V Using the criteria mentioned above, evaluate each of the following arguments as strong or weak. Explain your answers. Be sure to specify the properties on which the analogy is based, as well as any background beliefs on which your evaluation depends. 1. This landscape by Cézanne is beautiful. He did another painting of a similar scene around the same time. So it is probably beautiful, too. 2. My aunt had a Siamese cat that bit me, so this Siamese cat will probably bite me, too. 3. The students I know who took this course last year got grades of A. I am a lot like them, since I am also smart and hardworking; and the course this year covers very similar material. So I will probably get an $A$. 4. This politician was caught cheating in his marriage, and he will have to face similarly strong temptations in his public duties, so he will probably cheat in political life as well. 5. A very high minimum wage led to increased unemployment in one country. That country's economy is similar to the economy in a different country. So a very high minimum wage will probably lead to increased unemployment in the other country as well. 6. I feel pain when someone hits me hard on the head with a baseball bat. Your body is a lot like mine. So you would probably feel pain if I hit you hard on the head with a baseball bat. (This is related to the so-called Problem of Other Minds.) 7. It is immoral for a doctor to lie to a patient about a test result, even if the doctor thinks that lying is in the patient's best interest. We know this because even doctors would agree that it would be morally wrong for a financial adviser to lie to them about a potential investment, even if the financial advisor thinks that this lie is in the doctor's best interests. 8. Chrysler was held legally liable for damages due to defects in the suspension of its Corvair. The defects in the Pinto gas tank caused injuries that were just as serious. Thus, Ford should also be held legally liable for damages due to those defects.

EXERCISE V

Using the criteria mentioned above, evaluate each of the following arguments as strong or weak. Explain your answers. Be sure to specify the properties on which the analogy is based, as well as any background beliefs on which your evaluation depends.
1. This landscape by Cézanne is beautiful. He did another painting of a similar scene around the same time. So it is probably beautiful, too.
2. My aunt had a Siamese cat that bit me, so this Siamese cat will probably bite me, too.
3. The students I know who took this course last year got grades of A. I am a lot like them, since I am also smart and hardworking; and the course this year covers very similar material. So I will probably get an $A$.
4. This politician was caught cheating in his marriage, and he will have to face similarly strong temptations in his public duties, so he will probably cheat in political life as well.
5. A very high minimum wage led to increased unemployment in one country. That country's economy is similar to the economy in a different country. So a very high minimum wage will probably lead to increased unemployment in the other country as well.
6. I feel pain when someone hits me hard on the head with a baseball bat. Your body is a lot like mine. So you would probably feel pain if I hit you hard on the head with a baseball bat. (This is related to the so-called Problem of Other Minds.)
7. It is immoral for a doctor to lie to a patient about a test result, even if the doctor thinks that lying is in the patient's best interest. We know this because even doctors would agree that it would be morally wrong for a financial adviser to lie to them about a potential investment, even if the financial advisor thinks that this lie is in the doctor's best interests.
8. Chrysler was held legally liable for damages due to defects in the suspension of its Corvair. The defects in the Pinto gas tank caused injuries that were just as serious. Thus, Ford should also be held legally liable for damages due to those defects.

Key Concepts

Strength versus Weakness of Arguments

This concept concerns the judgment of how persuasive an argument is based on the quality and relevance of the similarities drawn. A strong argument is one in which the shared properties between the compared entities are both numerous and significant enough to justify the conclusion. Conversely, a weak argument typically involves comparisons that do not sufficiently connect the premises to the conclusion, making the inference less reliable.

Background Beliefs

Background beliefs or assumptions play an essential role in evaluating analogical arguments since they provide the context and underlying support for why a certain similarity should lead to a similar outcome. These beliefs may include accepted norms, empirical evidence, or theoretical frameworks, and they help determine whether the analogy holds true in light of what is already known or assumed.

Analogical Reasoning

This concept involves drawing a comparison between two different entities on the basis of similarities in certain properties or relationships. In evaluating arguments, analogical reasoning is employed to infer that because two things share some important features, they may also share other related features. It requires assessing whether the similarity in the compared attributes is sufficient to warrant the conclusion drawn from the analogy.

Criteria for Evaluating Analogical Arguments

When evaluating an argument based on analogy, one must examine whether the similarities noted are relevant and significant to the conclusion. This involves analyzing the depth and number of shared properties between the entities being compared. A strong analogical argument will have a substantial and pertinent similarity, while a weak one will rest on superficial or irrelevant comparisons.

Relevance of Properties

In an analogical argument, the properties upon which the similarity is based must be directly linked to the claim being made. Not all similarities are equally important. The relevant properties are those that directly influence the outcome or characteristic in question, and they form the basis of a compelling or unsound inference in the argument.

Please give Ace some feedback