Final answer:
In reasoning by analogy, the premises must be true and form a valid inference to support a sound conclusion, eschewing any circular reasoning or irrelevant factors.
Step-by-step explanation:
In reasoning by analogy, the premises must be true or acceptable for the argument to be considered sound. This means that in reasoning by analogy, the similarities or parallels drawn between two cases must be relevant and substantial enough to support the conclusion. If the premises in an argument by analogy are false, irrelevant, or inadequate to support the conclusion, alternative arguments may provide equal or greater support. Therefore, a sound analogical argument requires not just the truth of the premises but also a clear and valid inference that logically connects them to the conclusion.
An example of testing deductive inferences is assuming the premises are true, and then determining if the conclusion logically follows. If you can imagine a scenario where the premises are true but the conclusion is false, the argument is invalid. For an argument to be sound, its premises must be true and sufficient to support the conclusion without containing circular reasoning, being irrelevant, or allowing for alternative arguments with greater support.