The Little Logic Book

Hardy, Ratzsch, Konyndyk De Young and Mellema

The Calvin College Press, 2013

Exercises for The Little Logic Book may be downloaded by the instructor as Word documents
and then modified for distribution to students; or students may be instructed to download the
exercises and then told which ones to answer. This is an exercise bank; it is not assumed that
students will do all the exercises for any one chapter. Comments, questions or suggestions for
Chapter One of The Little Logic Book can be sent to logic@calvin.edu

Exercise Bank for Chapter Nine:

Analogical Arguments
(Posted March, 2014)

1.0 Basic  Concepts  

Define or identify the following:

1.1 Analogical  argument  

1.2 Analogies  
1.3 Disanalogies  
1.4 Relevant  similarities  

2.0 Analogical  Argument  Basics  

Indicate whether the following statements are true or false.

2.1 Analogy is the weakest form of argument.

2.2 There are many crucial issues of everyday life for which useful deductive arguments
are not available.
2.3 There are no completely automatic rules for evaluating the strength of analogical
arguments.

3.0 Analogical  Arguments  

 
3.1 State the basic pattern for analogical arguments.
3.2 State the two criteria good analogical arguments must meet.
3.3 What factors are important in assessing how well an analogical argument meets the
first criterion (involving the relevant connection)?
3.4 What factors are important in assessing how well an analogical argument meets the
second criterion (involving similarity)?

4.0 Analyzing  Analogical  Arguments  

4.1 In the following analogical argument identify:

 A. The things/groups being compared (that will be [a1,...] and [b1,...] in the basic
pattern),
B. The ways in which those two things/groups are thought to be
similar/analogous (that will be [P1, ...]),
C. The connection being inferentially transferred from [a1,...] to [b1,...]
(that will be the connection between [P1, ...] and [Q1, ...]),
and
D. The conclusion about the [b1,...] group (that will be [Q1, ...]).

Among the biological categories that really matter, young kittens and young calves are
extremely similar. (For instance, they are both land animals, vertebrates, warm blooded,
mammals, born live, hair-covered, four-legged, milk-fed as infants, playful, and share a
host of other relevant characteristics.) In light of all those similarities, one cannot
reasonably deny that just as young calves are considered a delicacy (veal) by food experts,
so too, fried kitten would make a wonderful addition to any diet.

4.2 Recall again the simple basic logical form of analogical arguments:

1. Two things/groups - [a1,...] and [b1,...] - are similar in that they all have characteristics
[P1, ...]
2. The first thing/group - [a1,...] - also has the additional important characteristics [Q1, ...]
So,
3. Probably, the second thing/group - [b1,...] – also has the additional characteristics [Q1,
...]

As closely as you can, restate the following analogical argument in that form:

One contention of sociobiology which has become popular in some circles is that our
primate cousins (e.g., bonobos) are enormously promiscuous, that we humans share a
significant genetic heritage with them, and that such behavior traits as a tendency toward
promiscuity are as inbred in us as they are in those creatures. These traits are perfectly
natural aspects of what we humans are. Thus just as chimps, bonobos, gorillas, etc.,
cannot be morally condemned—or even sensibly criticized—for their promiscuous
behavior, neither can we.

5.0 Evaluating  Analogical  Arguments  

 
Recall the two evaluative criteria for analogical arguments:

A. The connection between [P1, ...] and [Q1,..] must be properly established in the [a1,...]
cases.
And,
B. There must be a genuine, relevant, sufficient similarity between the [a1,...] cases and
the [b1,...] cases.

Lay out the following analogical arguments, identifying the supposed similarities between
the two cases and the additional quality Q that is supposed to hold in both in the a1 case
(the source case) and the b1 case (the target case). Give your assessment of the strength of
the arguments in terms of the two evaluative criteria listed above. In some of the
analogical arguments below the relevant similarities between the two cases are assumed
and implicit. To lay out and evaluate the argument, you will need to make those
similarities explicit.

5.1 There are, of course, those who don't take grade school playground bullying very
seriously. But the potential for harm is much greater than might be supposed. Bullying is
an exercise of power of one person or group over another. It degrades its victims, erodes
their sense of self-worth, generates a sense of powerlessness, induces paranoia. And in the
perpetrator, bullying represents the triumph of a warped sense of values, confers an
unmerited sense of status and importance that in turn undermines motivation for legitimate
and genuine achievement. Clearly bullying thus parallels armed robbery in significant
ways, and thus the criminal prosecution and jail sentences which society agrees is
appropriate for armed robbery should be applied to bullying as well.

5.2 From a chiropractor’s office for corrective care over relief care:

“If the alignment in the front end of your car is out, you can have one tire wear out faster
than another. You could keep replacing the tire as it goes bald. This is relief care. In the
short run, it might look like this saves money or time but it doesn’t. Although to correct
the problem might take a little longer and cost a little more, in the long run you actually
save way more.”

5.3 From a parent in favor of a doctor visit: “Scot, you really should go in for regular
annual check-ups with your doctor. If you owned a car, wouldn’t you take it in for regular
tune-ups once a year?”

5.4 From a high school student in defense of fornication: “Sure I believe in sex before
marriage. If you were going to buy a car, wouldn’t you take it out for a test drive first?”

5.5 From M. Craig Barnes, the President of Princeton Seminary, about our expectations
for church communities:

“Of course, the church is a flawed institution. It’s made up of very flawed people. But
that’s why we’re part of it in the first place. To expect any religion to be free of people
who have needs and wounds is like going to a hospital and being offended to find sick
people.” (From Body and Soul: Reclaiming the Heidelberg Catechism.)

5.6 From a Dutch bike advocate: In the mid 1960s the Dutch anarchist group, the Provos,
wanted to ban automobiles from the city center of Amsterdam. They argued that cars were
dangerous, killing people not only in accidents but by their exhaust fumes. In a manifesto
written by Luud Schimmelpennick, the inhabitants of Amsterdam were reminded that:
“Exhaust fumes were also, in Nazi Germany, a much-used and effective means for the
gassing of the Jews.” (From In the City of Bikes, by Peter Jordan.)

5.7 From the medieval philosopher, Boethius, regarding what we can expect from the
course of fortune in his The Consolation of Philosophy, written in prison while he was
awaiting execution: In this work Philosophy tells Boethius that if you seek your happiness
in the goods of fortune, you can’t complain when your fortune changes. That’s just the
nature of fortune. The analogy she uses: “Commit your boat to the winds and you must
sail whichever way they blow, not just where you want.” (From The Consolation of
Philosophy, Book II.)
 5.8 From Karl Marx in defense of modern philosophy: “But if occasionally individuals
cannot digest modern philosophy and die of indigestion, that counts no more against
philosophy than the occasional blowing up of a few train passengers by the bursting of a
boiler counts against the science of mechanics.”
(From “Comments on the lead article in Kölnische Zeitung #129,” 1842.)

5.9 In a Republican debate between presidential hopefuls, Rick Perry (governor of Texas)
boasted that millions of jobs have been created in Texas since he’s been in charge, while
many other states were losing jobs or adding only a very few. In response, Mitt Romney
said: “If you’re dealt four aces in a game of poker, that doesn’t necessarily make you a
great poker player.”

5.10 An analogical argument for the existence of a Creator: “Of course this world has a
Creator. If you found a watch on the beach, wouldn’t you think it had a maker?”

5.11 Consider this analogical argument:

A. Marijuana  has  been  unfairly  outlawed  in  the  United  States.  It  should  be  legalized.  
Alcohol  causes  people  to  act  crazy  and  is  the  cause  behind  many  traffic  fatalities.  
But  we  don’t  outlaw  alcohol  consumption.  
 
Now consider this analogical argument:

B. Alcohol  consumption  should  be  outlawed  in  the  United  States.  Marijuana  blurs  
people’s  judgment  and  contributes  to  traffic  accidents,  and  it’s  outlawed.  

These arguments are similar, yet they are given in support of very different conclusions.
Lay out and assess these arguments. In your view, is one argument stronger than the other?
Are they both equally weak? Equally strong? Explain your answer.

6.0 A  Stretch  

6.1 Prison Break

In one of Plato’s best-known dialogues, Crito visits Socrates in prison as Socrates awaits his
execution. Crito tries to convince Socrates that he should try to escape. The guards, it seems,
could easily be bought off. Besides, Crito argues, if you do not try to escape, Socrates, what will
people think of us, your friends: that we stood by and did nothing? That we were too cheap to
bribe the guards? Socrates responds to this worry by arguing that one should not worry about
what the general run of people think. One should pay attention to what some people think, but not
the majority. To commend this point, he employs an analogical argument (Crito, 47a-48a):

Socrates: Consider then, do you not think it a sound statement that one must not value all the
opinions of men, but those of some and not of others? What do you say? Is it not well said?

Crito: It is.

Socrates: One should value the good opinions, and not the bad ones?

Crito: Yes.
Socrates: The good opinions are those of wise men, the bad ones those of foolish men?

Crito: Of course.

Socrates: Come then, what of statements such as this: Should a man professionally engaged in
physical training pay attention to the praise and blame and opinion of any man, or to those of one
man only, namely a doctor or trainer?

Crito: To those of one only.

Socrates: He should therefore fear the blame and welcome the praise of that one man, and not
those of the many?

Crito: Obviously.

Socrates: He must then act and exercise, eat and drink in the way the one, the trainer and the one
who knows, thinks right, not all the others?

Crito: That is so.

Socrates: Very well. And if he disobeys the one, disregards his opinion and his praises while
valuing those of the many who have no knowledge, will he not suffer harm?

Crito: Of course.

Socrates: What is that harm, where does it tend, and what part of the man who disobeys does it
affect?

Crito: Obviously the harm is to his body, which it ruins.

Socrates: Well said. So with other matters, not to enumerate them all, and certainly with actions
just and unjust, shameful and beautiful, good and bad, about which we are now deliberating,
should we follow the opinion of the many and fear it, or that of the one, if there is one who has
knowledge of these things and before whom we feel fear and shame more than before all the
others? If we do not follow his directions, we shall harm and corrupt that part of ourselves that is
improved by just actions and destroyed by unjust actions [that is, we shall harm and corrupt the
soul]. Or is there nothing to this?

Crito: I think there certainly is, Socrates. …

Socrates: We should not then think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what he
will say who understands justice and injustice, the one, that is, and the truth itself. So that, in the
first place, you were wrong to believe that we should care for the opinion of the many about what
is just, beautiful, good, and their opposites.

Lay out this argument in terms of the basic structure of analogical arguments, and indicate
whether and why you think it is a strong or weak analogical argument.

6.2 The Ruler and the Ruled

In the opening book of Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachos defines justice as “the advantage of the
stronger.” The stronger group in any society rules, and the rulers, Thrasymachos thought, always
make the laws to their own advantage. Justice is a matter of obeying the laws, so justice is to the
advantage of the stronger. That is, justice is always to the advantage of the rulers, not the ruled.

Socrates disagrees. He thinks that typically rulers rule to the advantage of the ruled. That’s the
whole point of statecraft: to benefit the citizens. To make his point, he puts forward an analogical
argument based on other forms of craft. The craft of medicine is to the advantage of the patient;
the craft of horse breeding is to the advantage of the horses. So it seems that that in the other
crafts, the stronger always work to the advantage of the weaker. And this would hold for
statecraft as well.

Thrasymachos thinks this view is just naïve on Socrates’ part. Consider shepherds, Thrasymachos
begins. You must think, Socrates, that when shepherds fatten and care for their sheep they are
“looking to something other than their master’s good and their own. [But they fatten and care for
their sheep in order to slaughter them in the end!] Moreover, you believe that rulers in the cities—
true rulers, that is—think about their subjects differently than one does about sheep, and that
night and day they think of something besides their own advantage. You are so far from
understanding about justice and what’s just, about injustice and what’s unjust, that you don’t
realize that justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, and
harmful to the one who obeys and serves” (Republic 343b-d).

Write a brief analysis of this interchange of arguments. Both Socrates and Thrasymachos make
use of the same kind of analogy (ruler/ruled relationships), but they derive opposing conclusions.
What’s going on here? On what basis does Thrasymachos reject Socrates’s argument? Is one
analogical argument stronger than the other? Are they both equally weak?

6.3 Of Stars, Teapots and God

Gary Gutting, a member of the philosophy department of the University of Notre Dame, recently
interviewed the well-known philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga, on the rationality of belief
in God. (New York Times Opinionator, February 9, 2014). Some atheists, like Bertrand Russell
and Richard Dawkins, claim that the basis of their atheism is simply the lack of evidence for
theism. There is just not enough evidence to believe in God. So, they conclude, God does not
exist. But Plantinga maintains that lack of evidence is no grounds for atheism (“There is no
God.”); at most it’s grounds for agnosticism (“We don’t know if there is a God or not.”). “No one
thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also,
no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right
conclusion would instead be agnosticism [with respect to even or uneven number stars].”

But, Gutting responds, Bertrand Russell would say that atheism based on a lack of evidence for
theism is not like making claims about the uneven number of stars, but rather like denying that
there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. If we have no good evidence for the claim that there is a
teapot orbiting the sun, surely we would be perfectly justified in denying that there is a teapot
orbiting the sun. Atheism is more like that. Lack of evidence for the existence of God is therefore
a sufficient basis for atheism.

Here is Plantinga’s response: “Russell’s idea, I take it, is we don’t really have any evidence
against teapotism, but we don’t need any; the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and is
enough to support a-teapotism. We don’t need any positive evidence against it to be justified in a-
teapotism; and perhaps the same is true of theism.
 I disagree: Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as
far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if
some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No
country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a
teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news;
we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence
against teapotism. So if, a la Russell, theism is like teapotism, the atheist, to be justified, would
(like the a-teapotist) have to have powerful evidence against theism.”

In good part this debate is about finding the kind of analogy that would show that an atheism
based on a lack of evidence for theism is entirely justified. What is this kind of argument for
atheism like? Is it like believing there is no teapot circling the sun just because we have no
evidence that there is such a teapot? If a-teapotism is justified simply on the basis of a lack of
evidence for teapotism, and atheism is like a-teapotism, then it would seem that atheism is
likewise justified simply on the basis of a lack of evidence for theism. Bertrand Russell thinks
this analogy works in favor of atheism; but Alvin Plantinga, drawing on the same analogy,
disagrees. What is the difference in their understanding of the orbiting teapot case that makes one
think it’s a good analogue for the argument that the atheist is justified simply on the basis of a
lack of evidence for theism, while the other thinks that it would make a good case for thinking
that the atheist would need powerful evidence against theism?

In sorting out these issues, it might help to take a peek at page 146 in the chapter on Informal
Fallacies, where the Argument from Ignorance is discussed.