Multiple choice (all correct options required) · #111
A husband says to his wife, “Our friend Lao Wang’s family used a ‘parent-child agreement chart’ and their child’s homework procrastination noticeably decreased. If we use this method, it will surely solve our child’s procrastination problem too.” The wife replies, “That’s not necessarily true—our child’s situation is different from theirs.” Which of the following statements are correct?
Show answer & explanation
Answer: AC
- AThe husband uses analogical reasoning, and its conclusion is only probable, not certain.✓ Correct. The husband infers that the same method will work based on similarities between the two families, which is a typical analogy; the conclusion of an analogy is only a hypothesis to be tested.
- BThe husband uses inductive reasoning because he generalizes a universal rule from a single case in Lao Wang’s family.✗ Incorrect. This mistakes analogy for induction. The husband directly analogizes from one specific case to his own family, not generalizing from multiple samples.
- CThe wife’s objection hits the key point: we need to compare differences such as the children’s ages and reasons for procrastination to see whether these differences affect the effectiveness.✓ Correct. The strength of an analogy depends on the relevance of similarities to the conclusion and whether the differences are significant enough to undermine the effect.
- DIf the wife can point out that Lao Wang’s child is naturally self-disciplined while her own child procrastinates due to emotional issues, she can fully prove that the ‘parent-child agreement chart’ is definitely ineffective.✗ Incorrect. Pointing out key differences only shows that this analogy cannot support the conclusion; it does not prove the method itself is ineffective. This mistake treats the failure of an analogy as proof that the conclusion is false.
Explanation:The husband analogizes between Lao Wang’s family and his own, assuming that similar families will have similar good results with the same method—this is analogical reasoning. Analogical conclusions only provide probability, not certainty. The wife points out differences between the families and asks whether those differences affect the outcome, which is the key test of whether the analogy holds. Calling the husband’s reasoning “induction from a single case to a universal rule” misidentifies analogy as induction. Claiming that pointing out differences “fully proves the method is ineffective” over-extends the failure of the analogy to mean the method is invalid.