A rule that cannot discriminate projectible from non-projectible analogical bases systematically underdetermines when inductive support is genuine, rendering it unfit as a general rule.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Analogical bases(as used in inductive reasoning): The specific similarities or shared features between different things that we use as a reason to think they'll be alike in other ways too (reasoning by analogy).
Non-projectible(as used in philosophy of induction): A property or characteristic that is NOT reliable for making predictions, even if it seemed to work in past cases; using it to predict future cases would be misleading or invalid.
general rule(Introduced as a definitional preamble; the form itself is not given in the excerpt): A law-like statement (true or false) of a specified form
inductive support(in logic and reasoning): Evidence gathered from specific examples that makes a general claim more likely to be true, like how seeing many red apples makes the claim 'apples are red' more believable.

Based on where you are in your exploration