Question 1

"Compromising with an enemy in your midst is like trying to reason with a cancer in the body.The doctor does not compromise with the cancer-he cuts it out before it can spread."
 Of the choices below, which counteranalogy most decisively refutes this argument?
A)People are rational agents and cancers are not.
B)If a person can be a cancer then we could call anything we don't like a disease like taxes or tornadoes.
C)A doctor who performs surgery when other less drastic measures would have worked instead is a bad doctor-perhaps even a criminal.
D)Calling people of other ethnic backgrounds "cancers" is like calling them "cockroaches"-it is certainly bigotry.

Accepted Answer

The counteranalogy in choice C directly challenges the original analogy by highlighting that a good doctor considers all options before resorting to drastic measures like surgery, implying that negotiation or compromise could be viable options in dealing with an enemy, just as less invasive treatments might be considered before surgery in medical cases.

Question 2

"Getting up in the morning and going to work without taking a morning jog is like expecting your car to drive without first turning on the engine."
 Which of the following counteranalogies most decisively refutes this reasoning?
A)Getting up and immediately jogging around the block is like jogging right after a full meal.I wouldn't advise it.
B)Getting up in the morning and taking a morning run before going to work is like running around the track until you're exhausted just before competing in 
 a big race.
C)Trying to get up and jog every morning is like remembering to floss your teeth: It is the sort of New Year's resolution that does not last past January.
D)Going to work right after jogging is like filling out tax forms in your dentist's waiting room-why do this to yourself?

Accepted Answer

Option B effectively counters the original analogy by suggesting that jogging before work could deplete one's energy, similar to how running around the track before a race would exhaust a competitor, making it a poor preparation strategy.

Question 3

"I have been to Florida two times.Each time, I had great weather and a great time. I conclude, therefore, that Florida is a great place to vacation."
 What would be the best way to make this conclusion stronger?
A)if I had been there a dozen times
B)if I gave more information about the state of Florida
C)if I had said where I stayed while there
D)if I had discussed other vacations not taken in Florida

Accepted Answer

Having visited Florida more times would provide a larger sample size, making the conclusion about it being a great vacation spot more reliable.

Question 4

"I have always liked Fords.They are great cars: you'll get at least 200,000 miles on an Escort; it will never break down!" What is the best way to make this claim even stronger?
A)saying "300000" instead of "200000"
B)saying why Fords are better than Hondas
C)estimating a bit less than "200000" and saying "almost never"
D)letting someone actually drive the Escort in questio

Accepted Answer

The answer of "I have always liked Fords.They are great...

Question 5

"This chef is from the south of France-the same place that Chef Picard is from! We should dine at his restaurant as soon as we can!" On which criterion is this analogical argument rather weak?
A)number of entities
B)variety of instances in the premises
C)relevance
D)all of the above

Accepted Answer

The answer of "This chef is from the south of...

Question 6

"I have been to McDonald's in New York City, in Los Angeles, and in London-and in all three places, the French fries have tasted exactly the same.Because of these three experiences, I am confident in saying that McDonald's French fries taste the same everywhere." This argument's strength rests on the criterion of:
A)number of entities
B)relevance
C)variety of the instances in the premises
D)all of the above

Accepted Answer

The argument's strength is based on the variety of instances (different cities across two countries), relevance (all instances are McDonald's restaurants), and the number of entities (three distinct locations), making all the options correct.

Question 7

"What do you mean I should be careful eating this chili?
I have been to Wendy's for lunch every day since 1985-except for Sundays and holidays.Each time, I have eaten chili, and each time it has been great.It has never caused me the least bit of discomfort, either.I conclude from this that Wendy's chili will not cause me discomfort now." The speaker's argument relies mostly on the criterion of:
A)number of entities
B)relevance
C)variety of the instances in the premises
D)number of similar respects

Accepted Answer

The answer of "What do you mean I should be...

Question 8

"" I don't care that you think that you and your silly friend have so much in com-mon. You may be the same age, and weight, and height; you may even both likePokémon and pizza. But that doesn't matter: he comes from a Baptist family, andwe are Buddhist."
This speaker's argument rests on the criterion of:
A)disanalogies
B)relevance
C)variety of the instances in the premises
D)number of similar respects

Accepted Answer

The speaker is emphasizing that the religious background (Buddhist vs. Baptist) is more important than any other similarities, suggesting that this criterion is more relevant to the argument than the others listed.

Question 9

Which conclusion would make an argument the strongest?
A)I know that we will always be together.
B)I know that we will be together for years.
C)I know that we will be friends for a long time.
D)I know that we will have a good time tomorrow.

Accepted Answer

Option D focuses on a specific, immediate, and realistic outcome, making the argument stronger by being more tangible and achievable compared to the more vague and indefinite timelines suggested in the other options.

Question 10

Zibby has taken four logic courses in college, and has liked them all.So she decides to take one more, expecting that she will like it, too.Which of the following addi-
 tional pieces of information would make this conclusion more probable?
A)Her previous logic courses have all been with the same professor but she does not know the professor teaching this course.
B)Her previous logic courses have all been in Aristotelian logic and this one is in symbolic logic.
C)Her previous logic courses have been the most exciting experiences of her life-and she has very high expectations of this one.
D)She also took logic courses in high school, and she liked them as well.

Accepted Answer

The fact that Zibby liked logic courses both in high school and college suggests a consistent interest in the subject, making it more probable she will like the new course too.

Question 11

To be deductively valid, an argument by analogy must pass all six of the criteria for
 appraising analogical arguments.

Accepted Answer

Deductive validity is not determined by passing criteria for appraising analogical arguments, as deductive validity concerns whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, while analogical arguments are a form of inductive reasoning where conclusions are probable, not certain.

Question 12

Because I've dropped my watch in a pond, worn it in the rain, and had it on me
 while swimming, my belief in its quality is more justified now than when the sales-
 person first demonstrated it to me.

Accepted Answer

Repeated exposure to conditions that could potentially damage the watch without it actually getting damaged increases empirical evidence of its durability, thus justifying a belief in its quality.

Question 13

It is not possible to logically refute an analogy, even if the counteranalogy has
 exactly the same form, because analogical reasoning is inductive, which means that
 the premises never support the conclusion with certainty.

Accepted Answer

Analogical reasoning is inductive, meaning it suggests a probable conclusion based on similarities, but it doesn't guarantee certainty, making it difficult to refute definitively.

Question 14

If I have always had excellent advice from my best friend, and another friend asks
 me how good her advice is, my claim will be stronger if I say that her advice has
 been pretty good instead of excellent.

Accepted Answer

If you say that your friend's advice has been "pretty good" instead of "excellent," it implies that you have a higher standard for "excellent" advice. This makes your claim that your best friend's advice has always been excellent stronger, as it suggests that your friend's advice meets your high standards.

Question 15

One serious disanalogy always tends to weaken an analogy, regardless of the fact
 that the two things being compared may have a great many similarities.

Accepted Answer

A serious disanalogy can undermine the strength of an analogy by highlighting a fundamental difference that affects the relevance or applicability of the comparison, despite the presence of many similarities.

Question 16

Matching:
-In order for a refutation by logical analogy to be successful, the counteranalogy needs to have a form ________ to that of the original.
A)different
B)opposite
C)similar

Accepted Answer

A successful refutation by logical analogy requires the counteranalogy to have a form similar to that of the original, ensuring that the comparison is relevant and directly addresses the logic of the initial analogy.

Question 17

Matching:
-In a refuting analogy, the conclusion should be known to be ________.
A)true
B)false
C)Valid

Accepted Answer

In a refuting analogy, the conclusion should be known to be false. This is because the purpose of a refuting analogy is to demonstrate that a comparison or analogy used to support a conclusion is flawed, thereby undermining the conclusion itself.

Question 18

Matching:
-Pointing out a ________ is often the same as detecting the fallacy of accident.
A)false premise
B)disanalogy
C)true premise

Accepted Answer

Detecting a disanalogy involves identifying a relevant difference between two things that undermines an analogy or comparison, which is similar to identifying the fallacy of accident. This fallacy occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case it does not apply to, often because of a relevant difference or disanalogy between the case and those the rule is supposed to govern.

Question 19

Matching:
-An argument is _________ when its conclusion is made less bold.
A)weakened
B)strengthened
C)lengthened

Accepted Answer

The answer of Matching:
-An argument is _________ when its conclusion...

Question 20

Matching:
-The more dissimilar the instances mentioned in the premises of an analogical argu- ment are, the ________ the argument is.
A)weaker
B)stronger
C)harder

Accepted Answer

The strength of an analogical argument depends on the similarity between the instances mentioned in the premises. The more dissimilar they are, the weaker the argument becomes because it's harder to draw a reliable conclusion from dissimilar examples.

Quiz 11: Analogical Reasoning

"Compromising with an enemy in your midst is like trying to reason with a cancer in the body.The doctor does not compromise with the cancer-he cuts it out before it can spread." Of the choices below, which counteranalogy most decisively refutes this argument?

"Getting up in the morning and going to work without taking a morning jog is like expecting your car to drive without first turning on the engine." Which of the following counteranalogies most decisively refutes this reasoning?

"I have been to Florida two times.Each time, I had great weather and a great time. I conclude, therefore, that Florida is a great place to vacation." What would be the best way to make this conclusion stronger?

"I have always liked Fords.They are great cars: you'll get at least 200,000 miles on an Escort; it will never break down!" What is the best way to make this claim even stronger?

"This chef is from the south of France-the same place that Chef Picard is from! We should dine at his restaurant as soon as we can!" On which criterion is this analogical argument rather weak?

Which conclusion would make an argument the strongest?

Zibby has taken four logic courses in college, and has liked them all.So she decides to take one more, expecting that she will like it, too.Which of the following addi- tional pieces of information would make this conclusion more probable?

To be deductively valid, an argument by analogy must pass all six of the criteria for appraising analogical arguments.

Because I've dropped my watch in a pond, worn it in the rain, and had it on me while swimming, my belief in its quality is more justified now than when the sales- person first demonstrated it to me.

It is not possible to logically refute an analogy, even if the counteranalogy has exactly the same form, because analogical reasoning is inductive, which means that the premises never support the conclusion with certainty.

If I have always had excellent advice from my best friend, and another friend asks me how good her advice is, my claim will be stronger if I say that her advice has been pretty good instead of excellent.

One serious disanalogy always tends to weaken an analogy, regardless of the fact that the two things being compared may have a great many similarities.

Matching: -In order for a refutation by logical analogy to be successful, the counteranalogy needs to have a form ________ to that of the original.

Matching: -In a refuting analogy, the conclusion should be known to be ________.

Matching: -Pointing out a ________ is often the same as detecting the fallacy of accident.

Matching: -An argument is _________ when its conclusion is made less bold.

Matching: -The more dissimilar the instances mentioned in the premises of an analogical argu- ment are, the ________ the argument is.