Analogical reasoning meaning – UGC NET Question

Analogical reasoning proceeds by comparing a target case with a source case and arguing that because they share relevant similarities, the target likely shares additional properties possessed by the source. Its strength depends on the number, relevance and systematic nature of these similarities and on the absence of important differences. This form of reasoning is widely used in law, ethics and everyday decision-making. Therefore the reasoning described in the stem is analogical reasoning.

Option A:
Option A, deductive, involves deriving conclusions that follow necessarily from premises, often using general principles applied to specific cases. While analogies may appear in deductive arguments, deduction is not defined by similarity between cases.

Option B:
Option B, inductive, is a broader category of non-deductive reasoning that includes generalisations and causal inferences; analogical reasoning can be seen as a type of induction, but the specific description in the stem focuses on similarity between cases, which is captured more precisely by the term analogical.

Option C:
Option C, causal, aims at identifying cause–effect relations and may use experiments or statistical data. Although causal reasoning can use analogies, it is not itself defined by case-to-case similarity.

Option D:
Option D is correct because analogical reasoning explicitly uses resemblance between cases as the basis for inference. The stem’s emphasis on similarity and inference from one case to another fits this concept exactly.