Analogies as Evidence PDF

Preview

Summary

Analogies assignment...

Description

Analogies as Evidence Dennis Cruz

04/09/2018

CRT 1401

Analogies as evidence can be very tricky. We should be aware when someone uses analogies to prove their point and ask ourselves, how do those things are similar and different to each other? Sometimes we generalize that because two things are similar in one or two aspects, they don’t have differences and that leads to weak reasoning. Most analogies are usually suggestive, we must always provide evidence to support analogies in our own work, so we reveal that, although two things has certain differences, they are significantly similar and can be applied in our research. Below are four Arguments by Analogy, some were even being used during the recent Presidential debates. Pick one of the following Arguments by Analogy: Gun Control / Contraception / Gay Marriage / Illegal Immigration (see the details below). Evaluate the Argument using the following guide (from page 131-132 of ARQ).

Argument by Analogy 1: “Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”*

Q1. How are the two things being compared similar? How are they different? The similarities between Gun control and drunk driving are that they both can become crimes. Gun control can be necessary to avoid murders in schools or shootings in neighborhood that can end up in death. And drunk driving is a crime because alcohol reduces your level of

concentration and ability to make decisions, this can end up in a bigger crime if, because you are drunk, cause an accident that result of the death of people or, while you are driving, you don’t see somebody and go towards him with your car, causing injures or killing her. Also, both things ask for control, one in guns and the other one in drunk drivers so they both are asking for a change because they are crimes and people are aware that they are problems. The difference between the two is the level of crime and the results. Perhaps, people are asking for gun control because they have seen the consequences that guns in the wrong hand can cause such as genocides or shootings. One can say gun possession is as common as owning a car. Yes, both are common because they both allowed by the constitution, they both are American’s rights. But what they differ on is the grade of consequences wrong use of them can cause. If someone is driving wrong is less likely to go in a school and kill dozens of children, most of the time drunk people can cause accidents or not, but they are not acting with their 5 senses. Instead of with a gun in the wrong hand, a killer who knows what he is doing and is mentally ill. He having a gun have more probability of mass killing than someone owning a car and driving drunk.

Q2. How relevant are the similarities or differences? The similarities/differences are not very relevant because both things both things differ in the consequences they can cause. Although they both are crimes, this similarity is not relevant in this case because guns can create bigger destruction that cars in this situation. People ask for gun control because of the use mental ill people might give to it. Besides, the analogy talks about sober people not getting cars. Gun control is not designated for sober or drunk people, it is a method where they can find if the person requesting a gun has had any mental issue in the past

and to run a background of their lives. Any body can get drunk and not because of that we are going to make it harder to own a car. Cars are a need for most of the people, guns aren’t. And since nowadays we don’t know what those gun owners might use their guns on, people ask for gun control.

Q3. Generate an alternative analogy for the opposite point-of-view (POV) of the argument. The example in the textbook is: Argument by Analogy: Porn is like a form of discrimination against women. Alternative POV Analogy: Porn like a statement of women’s sexual liberation. My own Alternate POV Analogy for Gun Control is “Gun control like a prove of free will" or “Freedom of gun possession is like freedom of speech, they both are protected by the constitution.”

Argument by Analogy 4: “Being against illegal immigration is like being against illegal driving.”***

Q1. How are the two things being compared similar? How are they different? These two things are similar in a way that thy both are illegal actions, one regarding driving, such as underage driving, drunk driving or driving without license, and the other one regarding people migration, such as going from one country to another without a visa allowing them to cross borders. That is the only similarity I find between the two.

The difference between both is that people doesn’t see illegal driving as bad as migration. That is, the level of repercussions and prejudice its different. Illegal driving can be committed by a teenager which, if caught, would receive a fine or ticket and might get him to prison; same with driving without license. Now, if a immigrant is caught in the united states without papers, that can lead him to a higher fine, prison and deportation. Besides, although migration might be more common than illegal driving, in the U.S. immigrants have a tougher time combatting the prejudices people have about them, in difference with someone who was driving without a permit. Also, the requirements for legalization for immigrants are more and harder to get, in contrast with a license which can allow someone to drive. As seem, immigration and illegal driving have more relevant differences than similarities and, therefore, the analogy might be weak or less accurate. Q2. How relevant are the similarities or differences? The similarities/differences are not very relevant because both things. The differences are more relevant than the similarities. As I said before, both things are illegal actions, but comparing driving and migration isn’t quite accurate because of the requirements both things need to become legal. That is what separate the most both actions and if one is against illegal immigration, it might mean they are against the type of people coming to their country, the stereotypes they might have can play a role and also, if taken to the extreme, the xenophobia toward migrants. There is a grater leap in the differences between both actions which make the similarities irrelevant. Q3. Generate an alternative analogy for the opposite point-of-view (POV) of the argument. The example in the textbook is: Argument by Analogy: Porn is like a form of discrimination against women. Alternative POV Analogy: Porn like a statement of women’s sexual liberation.

My own Alternate POV Analogy (for the same topic/issue that I chose in Q2) is “Being in favor of illegal immigration is like being in favor of thieves, rapists and murderers” or “Legalize immigrants is like legalize marihuana” * Retrieved on Oct 15, 2015 from: http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-drunk-driving-fallacywhy-gun-regulation-is-like-drunk-driving-laws/ *** Retrieved on Oct 15, 2015 from http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/12/homosexuality_and_racism_why_gay_marriage_ and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html **** Retrieved on Oct 15, 2015 from http://timothyblee.com/2010/06/24/illegal-driving-vsillegal-immigration/...