Types of Warrant

1. Types of Warrant ANALOGY

2. Warrants/General Strategies of Argument Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the claim and evidence/reason. A warrant is the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim. Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or reason, and they are not normally explicit.

3. Example: “Needle exchange programs should be abolished [claim] because they only cause more people to use drugs.” [reason] The warrant that is unstated is: “when you make risky behavior safer you encourage more people to engage in it.”

4. Analogy Analogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject. Analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular. Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation and communication.

5. Standardizing Analogy Arguments The basic motor of any analogy argument is a comparison; a claim that one thing is like another thing. What is special about analogy arguments is that they only work if the similarity between the two objects being compared is extremely strong in areas that are relevant to the issue being settled.

6. Standardizing Analogy Arguments Continued Relevant similarities make an argument stronger and relevant differences make an argument weaker. When evaluating an analogy argument you must pay attention to relevant similarities and differences, and ignore irrelevant ones. Analogies are a powerful instrument of persuasion, even in instances where they can carry no weight.

7. Example of Using Analogy I want to buy a car. I ask many of my friends who have recently bought new cars how their experience was, where they bought it from, and the model. 3 of my friends bought a BMW. They all give excellent reviews of this BMW, so then by analogy, I conclude that since they are happy with their purchase I will be happy with mine too.

8. Evaluating Analogies The argument about my car is not deductively valid because it may turn out my car can be an exception. There are many things that go into determining the strength or weakness of my argument: -Number of Instances: If 5 of my friends instead of 3 report they are happy with the car model I intend to buy, that means I will be more satisfied too. More instances strengthen an analogy. -Instance Variety: If 3 of my friends bought their BMW’s from all different dealerships, then it doesn’t matter where I buy mine because they were all satisfied. The more variety in instances, the better the argument becomes.

9. Evaluating Analogies -Number of Similarities: If my new purchase is not only the same make and model from the same dealer but also has the same engine, then my conclusion is more likely to be true. The more similarities there are between the instances and my conclusion, the better the argument. -Number of Dissimilarities: If all of my friends bought BMW’s with automatic transmissions, and I plan to buy one with a manual transmission, then the conclusion that I will be happy with my purchase will be less likely. the fewer Dissimilarities between instances and conclusion, the better the argument is. -Modesty of Conclusion: If all 3 of my friends were happy with their car purchases but I conclude only that I will be satisfied with mine, then this relatively modest conclusion is more likely to be true. Arguments by analogy are improved when their conclusions are modest with respect to their premises.