The psychologist doesn’t refute a claim that a certain event is inevitable. Instead, he concludes that people shouldn’t try to do something. Also, he uses an analogy, not the possibility of an alternative event, to support his argument.

The psychologist doesn’t undermine a theory at all, nor does he question any assumptions. Instead, he uses an analogy to arrive at a prescriptive conclusion.

The psychologist argues that eliminating certain cognitive errors might not be appropriate. He supports with an analogy, suggesting that a corresponding action— eliminating certain visual errors— is also not appropriate (or reasonable).

By using an analogy to support his conclusion, the psychologist does assume that two situations are similar. But he uses this analogy to conclude that two different actions— eliminating cognitive errors and eliminating visual errors— would be unreasonable in each situation.

The psychologist does argue against a particular action, but he doesn’t do so by establishing a generalization. Instead, he uses an analogy to argue against a particular action.