Keynes and Mill both demonstrated that analogical arguments gain force from the elimination of competing hypotheses, not from generalization conditions imposed on structural features of domains.

?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.

Elimination of competing hypotheses(as what makes analogical arguments stronger): The process of ruling out alternative explanations or possibilities, leaving the remaining explanation as more likely to be true.
Generalization conditions(as features that the statement argues are NOT what make analogical arguments work): Rules or requirements about how broad or widely-applicable something needs to be before you can safely apply it to new situations.
Keynes(as a philosopher of probability and evidence): John Maynard Keynes was a 20th-century British philosopher and economist who developed ideas about how we should measure and think about probability based on the evidence we have available.
Mill(as the subject being discussed): John Stuart Mill was a 19th-century British philosopher who wrote influential ideas about liberty, happiness, and what makes a good life.

Based on where you are in your exploration