Final answer:
Analogical arguments can be stronger when comparing a thing with multiple similar objects, as opposed to a single comparison, provided these comparisons are relevant and similar. The argument's strength is reduced when comparing fundamentally dissimilar things or when analogies suffer from logical fallacies. Analogies are useful in making complex subjects accessible by comparing them to familiar concepts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The strength of analogical arguments is dependent on the similarities between the objects or concepts being compared. According to David Hume, the accuracy of conclusions drawn from analogies correlates with how closely each compared element resembles the other. This implies that an analogy comparing a thing with several other similar things could be stronger than one with just a single comparison, but only if the multiple comparisons are appropriately similar and relevant. An analogy should not compare fundamentally dissimilar things (like apples to oranges), as this reduces the strength of the argument.
In Buddhist philosophical texts, analogical reasoning has been used to structure logical arguments. For example, the Soul Analogical Argument in the Caraka-samhitā uses the structure of determining that 'X has property P, therefore X has property S because Y also has properties P and S.' This structured approach to argumentation suggests that as the structure and relevance of the analogies improve, so does the strength of the argument.
However, potential pitfalls such as fallacies of weak induction, premises that are irrelevant or that contain the conclusion (circular reasoning), and the existence of alternative arguments with equal or greater support can weaken analogical arguments.
Analogical reasoning is helpful when trying to make a complex subject more accessible by comparing it to something familiar to the audience. Nonetheless, it's crucial to ensure that the analogies used are strong and relevant to avoid incommensurability, where the comparison lacks a standard of evaluation that applies to both subjects.