Guidelines for Analogical Argument Portfolio

In this assignment, you will come up with 3 original examples of cogent Analogical Arguments, to show that you know how to use them correctly.

Make sure that the content of the arguments is as different from one another as possible, and that at least one conclusion is theoretical and at least one is normative. Each of the premises should be uncontroversially true.

1. It is easiest to start by generating a conclusion and then search for premises. If you choose this approach, start with a theoretical or normative claim as the conclusion (Thing B has Property 2). Indicate above the argument whether the conclusion is Theoretical or Normative.

2. Identify a Thing A that shares Property 2.

3. Try to identify Property 1, i.e., another property that Thing A and Thing B share in common that is highly correlated with Property 2. If you are unable to identify one, then you will need to change Thing A or start over with a new conclusion.

4. In the Third Premise, make a rough guess how high the correlation is between Property 1 and Property 2, stating it as a percentage. If you think it is 50% or less, then the correlation isn’t high, and you need to find a new Property 1.

5. In the Fourth Premise, provide an explanation for this correlation in order to show that is isn’t merely a coincidence.

6. When you have completed a draft of your portfolio, double check your grammar and spelling, the formatting of the paper, and each item on the checklist below. Then write or type the following signing statement and sign your name: “I have carefully read and followed the guidelines and thoroughly edited my paper for grammar, spelling, and formatting.”

Theoretical Example:

1. I am a human being and aspirin is a safe and effective pain medication for me.

2. Jane is also a human being.

3. There is a high correlation (approximately 94%) between the effects of a medication like aspirin and the species a creature is a member of.

4. This correlation makes sense since the effects of a medication depend on how it interacts with particular physiological features, and a creature’s physiological features are determined to a great extent by what type of species it is.

5. Therefore, aspirin is probably a safe and effective pain medication for Jane.

Normative Example:

1. Driving well above the speed limit on a crowded street endangers others and is illegal.

2. Sprinting on a crowded sidewalk endangers others.

3. There is a high correlation (approximately 99%) between an act that endangers others and the act being illegal.

4. This correlation makes sense since one of the purposes of the law is to protect innocent citizens from harm caused by others.

5. Therefore, sprinting on a crowded sidewalk should probably be illegal.

General Form of an Analogical Argument:

1. Thing A has Property 1 and Property 2.

2. Thing B has Property 1.

3. There is a High Correlation (approximate percentage) between Property 1 and Property 2.

4. Explanation of the correlation, showing that it’s not merely a coincidence.

5. Therefore, Thing B probably has Property 2.

Grammar and Spelling: Make sure that your papers are clearly written – i.e., that the meaning is clear enough that any other student would be able to understand it. Papers will be downgraded for spelling, grammatical, and stylistic errors if there are more than 2 per page.

Sources: You shouldn’t use any outside sources since your arguments are supposed to be original.

Format: Typed, 12 point type, 1-1.5 inch margins, number and staple pages if more than one page. Include a title and make sure that the parts of the portfolio are neatly arranged

Checklist

A. Name – Above each argument, indicate whether the conclusion is Theoretical or Normative. You need to include at least one example of each.

B. Originality and Diversity – None of the arguments should use examples that were used in class, in our textbook, or that you found in some other source like the Internet. Also, the content of each argument should be as different as possible from the others.

C. Uncontroversially True Premises – Are each of the Premises uncontroversially true? Are the claims in the Premises 3 and 4 plausible?

D. Approximate Percentage – Does Premise 3 include an approximate percentage, and is this percentage greater than 50%?

E. Inductive – Did you include the word ‘probably’ or a synonym in the Conclusion in order to indicate that this is an inductive argument?

F. Number both Premises and the Conclusion – Is each premise and conclusion in an argument numbered and on a separate line, and does the conclusion should start with ‘Therefore …’?