Back to the on-screen lesson ·
Identify a comparison's relevant similarities, important differences and limited conclusion.
Paper packet. Every task here also exists on screen, where it is checked automatically; answers written on paper are not assessed by Nydus. When you are back at a device, enter your answers there.
Judge whether a comparison supports its target conclusion by identifying the relationship that matters.
You can match reasoning patterns and evaluate added evidence. Here the task is to assess whether a result or principle in one case supports a conclusion about another case.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Source case | The observed or accepted example from which the argument reasons. |
| Target case | The case about which a further conclusion is proposed. |
| Relevant similarity | A shared feature connected to the mechanism or principle supporting the inference. |
| Disanalogy | A difference that may weaken the proposed transfer if it concerns that mechanism or principle. |
An analogical argument starts with a source case and asks you to carry a conclusion to a target case. The source may be a successful policy, an observed mechanism or a judgment about fairness. The target resembles it in some respects. The argument depends on those similarities being relevant to the proposed conclusion, not merely numerous or vivid.
A drainage system that worked in one location might work in another because the slope, soil and rainfall match. Two locations having names of the same length would not supply comparable support. The first group of features bears on how water moves; the second concerns a label. Always name the proposed mechanism or principle before deciding which resemblance matters.
This is different from a parallel-reasoning question. Matching two invalid conditional forms identifies a shared structure, but does not make either argument sound. Evaluating an analogy asks whether the shared feature justifies the particular transfer. The strongest answer may identify a relevant difference, a useful similarity or the limited conclusion the comparison supports.
Another way: picture
Draw two columns: source and target. Connect only the properties that bear on the predicted result; put decorative similarities below the line.
Another way: steps
Locate the source result; identify the target prediction; state the mechanism; compare relevant conditions; preserve uncertainty in the conclusion.
Suppose a library extends its hours and attendance rises because shift workers can now visit after work. Another library proposes the same change. A relevant similarity would be that the second library also serves people whose work hours previously prevented visits. A shared building style would have little force unless the passage connected that style to access. Now suppose the second library already opens after those workers finish. The proposed transfer loses a condition that made the source intervention useful. This does not prove that longer hours have no value; it shows why the first library's success supplies less support for this particular prediction.
Compare an ethical analogy. A program offers an appeal before withdrawing a scholarship because an allegation can be mistaken. A different program withdraws housing support after a disputed allegation. The surface benefits differ, but the rationale for an appeal may transfer: a consequential decision rests on contestable evidence. To weaken that analogy, identify a relevant difference in the risk or review procedure rather than simply pointing out that housing is not tuition. In both examples, write the bridge in ordinary language before evaluating the alternatives. If you cannot explain why the shared property bears on the conclusion, you have identified a resemblance but not yet assessed the argument.
Do not begin by counting similarities. First state the source result and target prediction separately. A policy may reduce one source of delay without reducing every kind of delay. If the target's problem has a different cause, copying the policy's appearance may accomplish little. Likewise, an ethical analogy transfers a reason for a safeguard rather than a physical mechanism. Describe the proposed inference in a sentence that includes its scope. A claim that a method is worth trying is weaker than a claim that it will produce exactly the same result.
Relevance is relational: a feature matters because it bears on this conclusion. Similar opening hours can matter to a prediction about visitor access but may be unimportant to a prediction about paint durability. The same difference can be decisive for one question and irrelevant for another. Ask what would change if that feature were different. If your explanation merely repeats that both things belong to the same category, look for the causal process, constraint or justificatory principle hidden under the category label.
A coastal cooling system and an inland system have many differences. The useful question is whether the target has the resource supply that made the source successful. Different names or construction dates may not matter. A limited water supply can matter directly. A good objection therefore links a difference to a failure in the proposed transfer. It should not demand that two cases be identical in every respect, because that would make almost every useful comparison impossible before its reasoning was examined.
A source's success may have depended on something other than the feature being copied. If a district's vacancies fell after longer opening hours and a rent subsidy, reproducing only the hours may not reproduce the result. This is both an analogy problem and a causal-alternative problem. Preserve the distinction: a relevant disanalogy can weaken a prediction without proving the prediction false. The target might still improve for another reason. Your answer should identify the missing support, not invent certainty about the opposite outcome.
Arguments about fairness often compare cases with different physical forms. A ramp and captions are unlike as objects but can serve a similar access function. A procedural appeal for one award can be relevant to another when both remove support on a contestable allegation. Identify the purpose that makes the source judgment reasonable. Then ask whether the target shares the relevant risk, interest or requirement. A difference in appearance alone does not defeat a comparison organized around a shared reason.
A well-supported analogy commonly makes a trial reasonable or a result more plausible; it does not make every outcome inevitable. Check whether the candidate introduces all, always, exactly or any cost. These additions may exceed what matching conditions support. Also distinguish a question asking what strengthens the analogy from one asking what is least relevant. For the latter, select the difference disconnected from the stated rationale, not the most damaging difference. Neglected task wording can reverse an otherwise careful evaluation.
When an institution proposes copying another institution's policy, ask which problem the original policy solved, what resources it needed and which constraints remain in the target. Then distinguish evidence that the source improved from evidence that this particular intervention produced the improvement. Those are separate questions.
In these activities, evaluate the supplied comparison rather than importing outside facts about an actual institution. After a wrong answer, identify whether you overvalued a surface resemblance, ignored a relevant difference, lost the target conclusion or demanded a guarantee. Compare your diagnosis with the option-specific feedback. Try a different case after a delay and state the bridge before inspecting the alternatives. The automatic result measures the supplied judgment, not your ability to design a complete real-world intervention or predict an official score.
A shared topic is not a shared mechanism. A difference matters only relative to the conclusion. Matching a formal flaw does not vindicate an argument, and a strong analogy can still support only a qualified prediction.
Read the passage and question.
A shaded courtyard stayed cooler after trees were planted. A planner predicts a similar benefit in another courtyard with the same sun exposure, paving and proposed canopy coverage.
Which feature most supports the analogy?
Sun exposure and canopy coverage connect the two thermal situations.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: The sites match on conditions relevant to shade and heat absorption. 2: Both courtyards have names beginning with the same letter. 3: Both are mentioned in the same report. 4: The planner likes both sites. 5: The first courtyard has already been planted.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
The sites match on conditions relevant to shade and heat absorption.
These similarities connect the source result to the proposed mechanism.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: A shared name feature does not explain cooling. 3: Joint mention does not establish causal comparability. 4: Preference does not link their physical responses. 5: That identifies the source case without showing relevance to the target.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A museum's timed tickets reduced entry queues. Another museum expects the same result, but its queues mainly occur at a mandatory security checkpoint after entry.
Which difference most weakens the analogy?
The source remedy and target problem operate at different stages.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: The target's main bottleneck is a different process from the one the source policy addressed. 2: The museums display art from different centuries. 3: The museums have different names. 4: Visitors can buy souvenirs at both sites. 5: Both museums charge for some exhibitions.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
The target's main bottleneck is a different process from the one the source policy addressed.
A remedy for admission timing need not remove security-processing delays.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: Subject matter is not connected to queue formation here. 3: That difference has no stated causal role. 4: That is a similarity unrelated to the bottleneck. 5: Shared charges do not address the different delay mechanisms.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A short training program improved accuracy on one kind of inspection. An employer argues that the same program will improve a second inspection requiring different equipment and different warning signs.
What would most help evaluate the analogy?
Shared labels do not establish shared skills.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Whether the program teaches operations shared by the two inspection tasks. 2: Whether both inspections are mentioned in job advertisements. 3: Whether the training room is comfortable. 4: Whether the program's title sounds technical. 5: Whether the employer wants better performance.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Whether the program teaches operations shared by the two inspection tasks.
Transfer depends on the relevant skill structure, not merely the label inspection.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: Joint classification as work does not identify shared operations. 3: Comfort alone does not establish task transfer. 4: A title supplies no evidence about learned operations. 5: The desired outcome does not establish the analogy.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Check the difficult boundary.
Relevant common operations may support transfer without proving every task will improve equally.
This last check preserves the exact strength and scope of the answer rather than turning it into a broader claim.
Locate the source benefit.
A reminder reduced bookings forgotten by customers.
The mechanism concerns memory of a booking.
Inspect the target obstacle.
Another service loses bookings mainly because transport is canceled.
A reminder does not itself restore transport.
State the limit.
A library's automatic reminders reduced late returns caused by forgetting due dates. A tool-lending service proposes reminders, but most late tools are retained because replacement parts arrive late. Which consideration most weakens the comparison?
A free exhibition attracted many visitors in a dense city center. A remote gallery predicts the same attendance after removing its fee, although travel remains expensive and infrequent. Which difference matters most? (1) The buildings have different architectural styles. (2) The galleries use different catalog numbering systems. (3) Both display original works. (4) Both directors support public access. (5) Access costs may remain the dominant barrier at the remote site. Identify the target prediction and connect each similarity or difference to the mechanism being transferred. Complete the method with the number of the best answer.
Name the precise task.
Identify the target prediction and connect each similarity or difference to the mechanism being transferred.
The question determines what would count as a successful answer.
Compare the candidates against the target.
Best answer: answer.
Preserve quantities, speaker attribution and the exact conclusion or passage claim.
Check the strongest rival.
Explain which required connection that rival lacks.
A defensible rejection exposes the misconception rather than memorizing an option number.
A porous pavement reduced runoff in one car park. Engineers propose it in another with comparable soil permeability, slope, rainfall and expected traffic. Which statement best evaluates the support? (1) Any two car parks must respond identically. (2) Different addresses make comparison impossible. (3) The comparison proves every porous surface will work in every climate. (4) No prediction is possible unless every feature is identical. (5) Matching relevant drainage conditions supports the prediction without guaranteeing an identical result. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
A library's automatic reminders reduced late returns caused by forgetting due dates. A tool-lending service proposes reminders, but most late tools are retained because replacement parts arrive late. Which consideration most weakens the comparison?
A porous pavement reduced runoff in one car park. Engineers propose it in another with comparable soil permeability, slope, rainfall and expected traffic. Which statement best evaluates the support?
A free exhibition attracted many visitors in a dense city center. A remote gallery predicts the same attendance after removing its fee, although travel remains expensive and infrequent. Which difference matters most?
A rule requires an appeal opportunity before a scholarship is withdrawn for alleged misconduct. A student argues that withdrawal of a research grant for the same kind of allegation should receive the same safeguard. Which similarity is most relevant?
A large greenhouse saved energy by installing automatic vents. A small unheated shed is expected to save the same amount through the same vents. What is the strongest objection to the analogy?
A documentary's unreliable narrator is compared with an unreliable witness: in each case, listeners should distinguish the speaker's assertion from independent corroboration. Which feature makes the comparison useful?
A company argues that if a backup generator is worth maintaining despite rarely being used, an emergency data archive can also be worth maintaining despite rare use. Which shared feature supports the analogy?
A sports club improved attendance by moving sessions after work. A retired-members club expects the same improvement from that schedule change. Which finding would most weaken the analogy?
An island uses seawater cooling successfully for a coastal facility. An inland facility proposes the same equipment, relying on a small freshwater reservoir with strict withdrawal limits. Which difference most challenges the proposed transfer? (1) The facilities have different postal codes. (2) Both facilities need cooling. (3) The inland manager visited the island. (4) Both machines contain metal parts. (5) The target lacks a comparably available cooling-water supply. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
Lesson test: one question per skill, one attempt each, no hints. Your answers are checked when you submit.
An author compares a scientific model with a map: each omits detail to make selected relationships usable. Which conclusion is best supported by that analogy?
After a delay, identify the source, target and relevant mechanism in a new analogy. Recall why a surface difference need not weaken it and why similarity does not guarantee an identical result.
17. Compare a cancellation policy, step 3
Different causes of nonattendance weaken the predicted transfer.
This limits the analogy without proving reminders have no possible benefit.