This paper systematically evaluates twenty-five arguments — fifteen by analogy and ten from statistics — assigning each a strength rating and explaining the logical reasoning behind that judgment. The analogies range from familiar comparisons such as "life is like a box of chocolates" to more contentious claims about religion, the death penalty, and homeschooling. The statistical arguments cover total counts, ratios, frequencies, distributions, and averages drawn from topics including gun control, terrorism, racial crime statistics, and electoral trends. Together, the examples illustrate how analogical and statistical reasoning can succeed or fail depending on the soundness of the underlying comparison, the relevance of the evidence, and the presence of confounding variables.
The paper consistently applies the technique of identifying the hidden premise in each analogy or statistic — the unstated assumption that makes the comparison seem valid — and then testing whether that premise actually holds. This is the core move in informal logic analysis and is executed concisely in each entry.
The paper is organized as a numbered catalogue divided into two major types: analogical arguments (1–15) and statistical arguments (1–10). Within each type, the statistical section is further organized by sub-type (total, ratio, frequency, distribution, average). Each entry follows a consistent micro-structure: state the argument, deliver a verdict, explain the reasoning. This format makes the paper easy to navigate and compare across entries.
Arguments by analogy and arguments from statistics are two of the most common forms of inductive reasoning. Both can be compelling or deeply flawed depending on whether the comparison or data genuinely supports the conclusion being drawn. The following analysis evaluates fifteen analogical arguments and ten statistical arguments, assigning each a strength rating and explaining the reasoning behind that judgment.
Analogy #1: "You wouldn't steal a car or snatch a purse, so you shouldn't illegally download music and movies."
This is a middling argument. It attempts to re-orient those who illegally download by showing them that there is a moral equivalency between car theft and intellectual property theft. Just because the latter is a more secretive and passive crime, and the former requires more preparation and hands-on participation, does not mean one should feel any less reticent about perpetrating either. The argument appears strong initially but ultimately fails, because the reason people feel comfortable stealing music is the sense that it is a victimless crime. If you deprive one person of a car, you have seriously affected their financial health. When you deprive many large companies of the price of one CD, it does not really affect their bottom line.
Analogy #2: "If a politician cheats on his wife, you can't trust him to perform honest and effective public service."
This is a weak argument. It is more widespread and socially accepted for one spouse to cheat on another than for a politician to "cheat" on the public by accepting bribes. The logic is presumably rooted in the idea that the cheated-on spouse might have contributed to the cheating spouse's behavior, or that the cheating is a symptom of a troubled relationship rather than the cause of it. The public as a whole, on the other hand, could not have done anything to the politician to warrant his betrayal. Thus, without any socially acceptable justification for betraying the public, cheating on a spouse ranks lower on the scale of serious moral failures than accepting a bribe, and there is no proof that an adulterous spouse will automatically sink to even greater misconduct.
Analogy #3: "This product is developed by NASA, so it must be good."
This is a weak argument. The claim contends that if NASA developed a product capable of conquering the challenges of space, the same product must surely be remarkable here on earth. It is weak, however, because it plays on the romance of deep space exploration, even though it may in actuality be easier to develop things for use in space than for use on earth, depending on the physical laws — such as gravity — relevant to the proposed product.
Analogy #4: "Someone who has a messy house is probably not successful at work."
This is a middling argument. While there is a likely correlation between being disorganized at home and being disorganized at work, this is not automatically the case. Moreover, even if someone is messy at work, that does not necessarily mean the person is unsuccessful. Though being organized is an important aspect of professional life, shortcomings in this area may be overlooked for a genuinely talented individual in the field.
Analogy #5: "Life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get."
This is a strong argument. Assuming the box of chocolates is not meticulously labeled, there is no way of predicting exactly what you will find other than the general distinction between chocolate and other types of food. Similarly, while you can rule out certain possibilities for your life, within one's general circumstances it is impossible to know precisely what any given day will bring.
Analogy #6: "Handing out anti-war propaganda during wartime is like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater."
This is a poor argument. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater will likely result in a mass exodus of patrons, and the resulting chaos may endanger lives. The argument is therefore claiming that anti-war leaflets will cause a mass defection of soldiers or an erosion of public support, and that the resulting chaos will undermine foreign policy and endanger lives. It is a poor argument because opposition to war can and should be openly debated; there will likely be no instantaneous reaction resembling a frightened, stampeding crowd, and no resulting catastrophic chaos.
Analogy #7: "A watch has a watchmaker, so the universe must have a designer."
This is a poor argument. The claim holds that a watch appears designed and must therefore have a designer, and that since the universe is delicately balanced and also seems designed, it too must have a designer. This reasoning does not hold, however, because we know a watch is designed precisely because there is no other natural process by which it could have come into existence. The universe, on the other hand, even if it appears designed, could have arrived at its current state through an evolutionary process of gradual accumulation across generations, in which natural forces shaped biological entities to maximize the odds of survival.
Analogy #8: "Killing is wrong, so the death penalty is also wrong."
This is a weak argument. The claim points to an apparent irony in executing a killer to punish him for murder. However, as a society we have created categories of killing that are identified as either justified or unjustified. There is a clear distinction between murdering someone for revenge or pleasure and killing someone because they represent a danger to society or as a deterrent to other potential murderers.
Analogy #9: "Writing is like baseball."
This is a good argument. The inference is that natural ability matters in both baseball and writing. However, in both activities, natural talent will only take you so far. With both baseball and writing, one must put in long hours of practice and deliberate refinement of craft, and with both one can learn from those who have come before and succeeded.
Analogy #10: "Criticizing religion is like racism or sexism."
This is a bad argument. The analogy attempts to equate race and sex with religious affiliation, placing all of them on a pedestal immune from public scrutiny. The critical difference is that while race and sex are not chosen, religion is a choice. Religion can be reasoned with, argued against, or abandoned through experience, but the same is not true for race or sex.
Analogy #11: "We shouldn't ban pesticides because cars kill people too."
This is a terrible argument. The reasoning attempts to draw a parallel: people would never countenance banning cars because their enormous benefits outweigh the occasional harm, and therefore pesticides, which also provide benefits, should not be banned either. The difference between the two is obvious, however: cars are not inherently dangerous. If their intended use and attendant safety protocols are followed, the harm they cause is minimal. Pesticides, on the other hand, are dangerous by their very nature. Even if chemicals are applied to crops in precisely the manner prescribed by the manufacturer, they remain a significant danger to the public.
Analogy #12: "As a society we may understand, but do not condone, child molestation when the offender was also molested as a child. Thus, religion is likewise a conditioned choice that can still be held accountable."
This is a good argument. We understand that someone raised in a particular way may have difficulty shedding that conditioning. At the same time, we do not excuse someone who was molested as a child if he in turn molests a child. We expect that maturity, time, and sober reflection will eventually free an adult of normal intelligence from the constraints of an oppressive upbringing. Similarly, though religion is usually introduced to a young child by parents, if that child continues in the same religious tradition as an adult, we regard it as the adult's own decision and no longer solely the parents'.
Analogy #13: "Homosexuality is unnatural because you never see two animals of the same sex attempting to mate."
This argument is faulty. The arguer clearly believes there are fundamental differences between humans and animals — otherwise, why would he be using language to engage in critical thought that is not essential for survival and reproduction? The premise that human behavior must conform to what is observed in animals is therefore self-undermining.
Analogy #14: "Home schooling is like totalitarianism."
This is a strong or weak argument depending on the point the arguer is trying to make. If the comparison is that, like a dictator in a totalitarian regime, the parent is the sole source of knowledge and access to education in a home-schooling environment, there is some truth to it. Unlike a totalitarian regime, however — which by definition prohibits contact with other peoples, behaviors, and beliefs — a home-schooling parent is unlikely to prevent the child from leaving the home and interacting with others.
Analogy #15: "Just as lottery tickets have relatively little value before the draw, embryos have relatively little value."
This is a strong argument. It is scientifically valid to observe that the overwhelming majority of embryos are unlikely to mature further. Just as the vast majority of lottery tickets are not winners, it should be no great issue to use embryos that will undoubtedly fail to mature, particularly in the pursuit of stem cell research. This discussion of value, however, does not take into account religious viewpoints on the worth of each human soul. If each embryo is theoretically imbued with a soul and each soul has limitless value, the balance of the argument shifts considerably.
Statistics #1 (total): "In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%. Gun control doesn't work."
This is a weak argument from statistics, because the murder rate is not limited to murders committed with guns. Moreover, a number of factors could account for the city's rise in murders — such as cutbacks in the police force — that have nothing to do with guns or gun control.
Statistics #2 (total): "Terrorist attacks worldwide have increased fourfold since the Iraq War, so the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq."
This is a middling argument. Though terrorist attacks certainly increased in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to the presence of American troops, terrorist attacks in other parts of the world are not necessarily linked to that presence. Moreover, the increase in attacks may be partly due to an emboldening of terrorist groups following the September 11 attacks, and not entirely attributable to the United States' military response.
Across both analogical and statistical reasoning, the strength of an argument depends not on how compelling it sounds at first glance, but on whether the underlying comparison or data genuinely supports the conclusion being drawn. The most common sources of failure in these examples include false equivalence between the two sides of an analogy, the presence of confounding variables in statistical data, and the application of population-level trends to individual cases. Recognizing these weaknesses is the foundation of sound critical thinking.
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.