Disanalogies weakening analogies – UGC NET Question

Disanalogies are relevant differences between the cases being compared in an analogical argument. When numerous or weighty disanalogies exist, the inference that what is true of one case is also true of the other becomes doubtful. The argument’s strength depends not only on similarities but also on the absence of such critical differences. Therefore the factor that weakens an analogy as described is the presence of disanalogies.

Option A:
Option A, shared features, typically strengthen an analogy when they are relevant to the conclusion. More relevant similarities make it more plausible that the property in question will also be shared. Thus shared features do not weaken the argument and are not appropriate here.

Option B:
Option B, examples, refer to specific instances used to illustrate a point. While examples may be used within analogies, they are not themselves the differences that undercut comparative reasoning. Hence examples are not the correct answer.

Option C:
Option C, causes, may be part of the explanation of why something occurs, but they are not uniquely associated with weakening analogical arguments. Differences in causal structures can be a type of disanalogy, but the broader concept mentioned in the stem is more precisely named disanalogies.

Option D:
Option D is correct because disanalogies directly undermine the assumption that what holds in the source case will also hold in the target case. Recognising them is crucial to critically evaluating analogical reasoning.