Argument by Analogy v. Argument by Counterexample

Darth Jurist

Hey all,

I seem to have found an issue in my thought process which needs addressing. I cannot distinguish between an analogy in an argument and counterexample.

For PT23 S2 Q11, an AP question type, I was pretty convinced that the part of the argument I was asked to describe was a counterexample when in fact, it was an analogy (question wrong ). After watching the explanation video I was still a little hazy on this but could definitely see it as an analogy.

Fast forward to PT33 S1 Q2, a MR question, I was faced with the same dilemma. Down to two answer choices, one describing the argument as using an analogy and the other saying it was a counterexample. My instinct wanted to choose the counterexample but I began to recall what caused me to err on the aforementioned AP question. I ended up choosing the analogy AC which ended up being correct.

I feel as if I am on the brink of having an 'ah ha' moment (or am way overthinking this) and was curious if anyone could shed some light and help clarify these two concepts for me.

From what I have taken away, an analogy is used in an argument to show that something is like something else and, because of the similarities, proof that the original reason for the initial something being argued for is in fact a valid. For example, If I say all Jedi use the Force and all Sith Lords use the Force as well, then Luke Skywalker is, therefore, both a Jedi Knight and a Sith Lord. The analogy of the Jedi and Sith assumes that Luke is both, when all avid Star Wars fans know this is not the case (although, this is not an entirely invalid argument. Anakin Skywalker--Luke's father--was, technically, both a Jedi and a Sith).

A counterexample almost directly opposes the initial claim made by the argument. If I say that all Jedi use the Force and I find a Jedi who has no ability to use the Force, then that would be a counterexample. It's like an exception to a rule.

Am I thinking straight? Thank you in advance.

quinnxzhang

Your description of analogy strikes me as wrong.

An analogy would be something like: Just as all bats use echolocation, so too do all Jedis use the Force. And a counterexample would be something like: Luke is a Jedi, but doesn't use the Force.

An analogy just likens two disparate things/categories/etc. (bats and Jedis), whereas a counterexample is a specific instance of something that undermines a general claim (Luke and Jedis).

So for 23.2.11, we see that the damaged radio is being likened to the damaged brain, which is why it's an analogy. The damaged radio is not a specific instance that undermines the general claim that consciousness cannot survive brain damage/bodily death the same way that Luke is being used to undermine the general claim about Jedis.

Similarly for 33.1.2, colorized films are being likened to film adaptations of novels, which is why it's an argument by analogy. The film adaptations of novels are not direct counterexamples to the claim that colorized films erode the integrity of the original. A counterexample would be something like: But the colorized version of Psycho doesn't erode the integrity of the original.

I think I see why you're getting confused. You think what determines if something is a counterexample is that it *undermines* a claim or conclusion or argument. While that's true, that alone does not suffice to determine whether something is a counterexample. The counterexample needs to also be a specific instance that *directly* undermines the claim or conclusion or argument.

On the flip side, it seems like you think an analogy has to support or validate a claim or conclusion or argument. But this is simply not true. Analogies can be used to undermine as well, as you can see in 23.2.11 and 33.1.2.

MrSamIam

Your explanation of a counterexample is spot on -it's simply an example that counters the original claim. For instance: "All fish can shoot lasers out of their eyes." A counterexample would be "Paul the fish cannot shoot lasers out of his eyes" - you provided an example to counter the claim that all fish can shoot lasers out of their eyes.

An analogy is when you take two seemingly different things and find a point of comparison between the two - in other words, you take 2 seemingly different things and show that they are similar in some respect. Arguments by analogy do this to get a point across.

This may not be the best example of an analogy (this one is intentionally flawed), but it should get the point across:
"Pilots that fly their planes too fast can be dangerous. After all, drivers that drive their cars too fast often cause accidents."
I'm analogizing planes with cars. Unfortunately there is a flaw here...how much "plane traffic" is there? Not much when compared to the number of cars present at any given time.

Cant Get Right

@"Darth Jurist" said:
If I say all Jedi use the Force and all Sith Lords use the Force as well, then Luke Skywalker is, therefore, both a Jedi Knight and a Sith Lord. The analogy of the Jedi and Sith assumes that Luke is both, when all avid Star Wars fans know this is not the case (although, this is not an entirely invalid argument. Anakin Skywalker--Luke's father--was, technically, both a Jedi and a Sith).

First of all, it’s important for you to understand why this argument is, in fact, entirely invalid. Go back and take a look at the lessons on validity.

@quinnxzhang and @mrsamiam covered the analogy/counter example pretty well. Basically, an analogy says X is like Y; so something like: the defendant claims she was only in the store to buy eggs, but that’s like the cat saying she was only in the bird cage for a drink of water. It’s a hypothetical, and an analogy is never technically relevant in a logical sense.

A counter example takes an argument like X because Y and says, “but Z, so no.” "When it rains it pours"- a counter example would be something like, “There was a light shower this morning, therefore, that’s stupid.” It's concrete. It’s not saying anything is like anything else. It just provides an example which is contrary to whatever example may be in the original argument.

Darth Jurist

Okay, starting to make more sense I think.

@MrSamIam said:
An analogy is when you take two seemingly different things and find a point of comparison between the two - in other words, you take 2 seemingly different things and show that they are similar in some respect. Arguments by analogy do this to get a point across.

This, I believe, set the light bulb off in my head. I think my Sith/Jedi example might have been another counterexample? I like the car/plane analogy. Okay, I think I am getting somewhere now.

Essentially, an analogy links X to Y based on some common characteristic and we have to determine how well the analogy fits the two. Most of the analogy questions I have come across seem to have flawed arguments.

MrSamIam

@"Darth Jurist" You got it. Yes, many of the flawed arguments use an analogy improperly. They'll analogize X to Y. However, what they'll fail to consider is that although the two have SOME point of comparison, they are incredibly different. Like the example above, you can compare fast moving cars to fast moving planes - in regard to danger. But, in doing so you fail to consider a major difference between the two - the number present in any given location, at any given time.
To weaken an argument by analogy: Show that the two things being compared aren't all that similar.
To strengthen an argument by analogy: Show that they are similar.

Accounts Playable

I think it's also helpful to know that an argument from analogy cannot ever, ever be a valid argument because at some point, there is going to be a relevant or practical difference between the two things being compared; plus, the definition of valid (at least on the LSAT) refers only to arguments that are deductive. Analogies can be strong or weak, and for the purposes of the LSAT, arguments from analogy are always weak.