Interpreting the argument from analogy as single-case induction is counter-productive because it fails to advance the search for criteria distinguishing relevant from irrelevant similarities.
Counter-productive(describing why an interpretation is unhelpful)
When something has the opposite effect of what you intended—it gets in the way of your goal instead of helping it.
Irrelevant similarities(as similarities that don't support an analogy)
Similarities that don't actually support your point or argument—details that might be true but don't help explain why two things work the same way.
Relevant similarities(as similarities that support an analogy)
Similarities between two things that actually matter for your argument—like saying two cars are both red is irrelevant if you're comparing their fuel efficiency, but the fact they both have the same engine size is relevant.
argument from analogy(Mill's formulation, 1843/1930, p. 367)
A competition between the known points of agreement and the known points of difference between two domains.
criteria(Dworkin's term for what he attributes to positivist legal theorists like Hart)
Uncontroversial shared tests used by lawyers to determine the truth of propositions of law
single-case induction(Aristotle's account of the paradeigma)
The inferential move from one particular example to a universal generalization
Interpreting the argument from analogy as single-case induction is also counter-productive in another way. The simplistic analysis does nothing to advance the search for criteria that help us to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant similarities, and hence between good and bad analogical arguments.
Extraction notes
Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks