Evaluation of an analogical Argument

Evaluation of an analogical Argument

The analogy in question presents a duo engaging in a conversation regarding leaving Cincinnati and shifting to Los Angeles. The dialogue transpires between two figures presented as a ‘he’ and a ‘she’. The evaluation will analyse the style of reasoning employed by the duo, compare akin issues and make a determination on the aspects on board the argument. A determination will also be made regarding the validity or invalidity of the deductive argument, its subjectiveness, strength, weakness and relevance to readers.

The figure ‘he’ in the analogy makes a proposal that they move and purchase a house in Los Angeles. However, the ‘she’ seems to oppose claiming that house prices in Los Angeles are exuberant. The ‘she’ applies reasoning and critical pondering to assess the ability of the two to transition smoothly from Cincinnati to Los Angeles. The questioning by the ‘she’ figure in the analogy is a form of deductive reasoning. P. The scenario demonstrates that the analogical argument is deductively valid. C. The argument in the presented analogy displays some kind of indistinctiveness from the disagreement on the issue at hand.

The ‘she’ figure in the argument seems to dissent from the proposal made by the ‘he’ owing to the fact that houses in Los Angeles are expensive. The disagreement shows lack of similarity between the arguments presented by the duo (Tindale, 2007). P. The argument staged by the ‘she’ figure gives the proponent a way of extending his belief from aspects he may be knowing regarding the analogy to unknown things. C. In the scenario, the target seems to be the house, which is presented as an item to which the duo extends their argument. It is the feature, which also seems to be the object of the property in question.

The ‘he’ in the analogy applies deductive reasoning by indirectly letting the ‘she’ aware that such a house in Los Angeles would not be so expensive. He presents this by putting it across that’ how much more expensive would such a structure be in Los Angeles”? C. He implies that even if the house would be expensive in Los Angeles, the variation would not be too wide to an extent that the two would not afford to purchase one. C. By referring the she as a pessimist, he implies that she quite subjective in her argument that seems to suggest that they would not be in position to purchase a house because of high cost. His utterances suggests that the argument is not deductively valid and is devoid of relevancy. The dissimilarity of the viewpoints and arguments staged by the duo gives rise to a higher probability that the conclusion that may be reached by the two might be strong and true (Tindale, 2007).


Tindale, C. W. (2007). Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GWEXDDSRGCF10” for 10% discount