Consider the argument given below : ‘Pre-employment testing of teachers is…

Concept

The type of an argument is fixed by the pattern of inference that links its premises to its conclusion, not by the topic it talks about. An analogical argument reasons from resemblance: because two or more cases are known to be alike in several respects, a further respect is transferred to a new case. Its conclusion is therefore held as probable, never as necessary.

Application

1. Premise: doctors, architects and engineers who now hold their posts had to face pre-employment testing.

2. Conclusion: pre-employment testing of teachers is quite fair.

3. Link between them: teachers are treated as relevantly similar to those groups — all are trained professionals entering posts with public responsibility.

4. Because a property established for the compared cases (the fairness of screening them before employment) is carried over to a new case on the strength of that similarity, the inference runs from resemblance to a further shared feature.

5. That pattern of inference is analogical, so the argument is analogical.

Cross-check

• Necessity test: even granting that the three professions were tested, teaching could differ in some relevant respect, so the conclusion is only made probable — the inference is not one where denying the conclusion while accepting the premise would be self-contradictory.

• Subject-field test: naming a field of study, such as mental processes or living organisms, describes what an argument is about; it does not name the premise-to-conclusion pattern the question is asking for.

• Result: the argument moves from a resemblance between the compared professions and teaching to a further shared feature, which is the analogical pattern.