Question

In an argument by analogy, the more relevant dissimilarities there are between the objects being compared, the less likely the conclusion is to be true: True/ False

Answer 1

The statement is true; an argument by analogy becomes weaker with more dissimilarities between the compared objects, thus reducing the likelihood of the conclusion being true.

Step-by-step explanation:

True. In an argument by analogy, the conclusion's validity heavily depends on the degree of similarity between the objects being compared. When there are more relevant dissimilarities between the objects, the analogy weakens, and the likelihood of the conclusion being true decreases. This is because the strength of an analogy is derived from the relevant similarities that support the conclusion drawn from the comparison. Analogies often compare two seemingly different things, but they must share enough common characteristics for the comparison to be meaningful. As noted by David Hume, the efficacy of an analogy is compromised when the compared objects are significantly different, akin to comparing 'apples to oranges'. A good analogy therefore requires a close resemblance between the compared entities to ensure that the conclusion stands on a solid foundation.