A simple analogical reasoning! A simple example of analogical reasoning

First of all, the relationship between the questions is Career-Work-Work-Related... Then it is obvious that the first one is not right, the exclusion of A, C is not right, obviously the work and the profession are not symmetrical, I believe that no one has ever seen the inspector run to the street to fine! Exclude C, why not choose B, I personally think that what is the relationship between ** and ** family, ** is created by ** family, it can also be said that he himself is not for the ** family, but the product of ** family!

So what about the title of cultural relics and archaeologists, obviously the relationship between cultural relics and archaeologists is that cultural relics are a tool of the archaeologist's work, and the real archaeologists should create it in the form of research reports. Exclusion B. Then it's D, maybe LZ thinks that cultural relics are object factories but are a place, so it's right, but according to a logical correspondence required by the title, there is no question of what the last one is, the main thing is whether he himself and the corresponding work is an auxiliary relationship!

Maybe I'm a little complicated - upstairs said bad, obviously the topic is to the cultural relics and did not say the cultural relics report, the relationship between the two is not equal, as for the subject-verb-object, I don't think there is any problem, but his statement is problematic, the owner thinks about it himself, hehe!

It's normal to give the wrong answer, even if it's the answer to the national exam. In fact, the state will not give standard answers (this thing is different from the college entrance examination, and the college entrance examination will announce the official answer).

Guogong's answers are all made by various educational organizations or publishing houses, and some questions with different questions and different answers are also different.

3.Archaeologists: Research: Antiquities.

a.Books: Analysis: Textbook BHome: Create:

c.Inspector: Fine: Police Department DWorkers: Labour: Factories.

The answer I'm looking at in another ** is b

Archaeologists study artifacts (perfect combination of subject + predicate + object).

**Home Creation** Same Topic Stem.

If the worker labor factory wants to write the sentence "the worker is working in the factory)", the worker subject, in the factory is the preposition, and labor is the predicate. Very inappropriate stem.

D is not right, the example is "research cultural relics", and D is "working in a factory", which does not fit the title of the example at all.

As for B, it should not be said that "create", it should be said that "creation" is better.

Choosing B is wise, although there are still some inconsistencies.

I also choose B. Could it be that the answer is wrong.

It is reasoning based on the premise that some properties of two things are the same, and the conclusion that the other properties of two things are the same.

Example: The first type of question, which is the most common type of question and the earliest type of analogical reasoning, is to give two words and then choose a set of answers.

Sunlight: Ultraviolet rays.

a.Computer: Fallout BSeawater: sodium chloride cMixture: Elemental DMicrowave: Microwave.

It is based on the relationship between sunlight and ultraviolet rays, seawater and sodium chloride that are all the relationship between the whole and the components, so the answer is selected as b.

Question type 2. The second type of question is to give three words and then pick a set of answers.

Exams: Students: Grades.

a.Correspondence: Netizen: Email bAutomobile: Driver: Driver's License CWork: Staff: Salary DMeals: Chef: Umami and delicious.

This question gives a combination of 3 words, and then the relationship is more complicated, not only need to consider the relationship between the first word and the second word, but also need to consider the relationship between the second word and the third word, and even sometimes need to look for the relationship between the first word and the third word to find the "breakthrough". For example, in the above question, we can know through analysis that "students get grades through exams", so we can get the analogy of "employees get wages through work", and then get the correct answer c.

The correspondence in analogical reasoning includes one-to-one correspondence and non-one-to-one correspondence, which are two more general categories, and the one-to-one correspondence expresses the correspondence of a one-to-one relationship between two set elements, such as Qingming Festival: tomb sweeping, Qingming Festival is basically tomb sweeping, which is a one-to-one correspondence. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets that are not one-to-one, and one of the sets has a correspondence with multiple sets, such as scissors:

Cloth and scissors can not only cut fabric, but also cut hair, paper, etc., which is a non-one-to-one correspondence. A more detailed division can be divided into many kinds, this article will sort out the 9 main correspondences, in this article will first bring you the first five pairs of correspondence. I hope it will be helpful for you to prepare for the exam.

A simple example of comparative reasoning should be to compare the things of human society with the natural world to you, for example, natural selection, survival of the fittest, goodbye, and then apply it to human society.

Analogical reasoning is one thing, which can be reasoned out step by step, and the next thing and the development of the whole thing is advantageous.

I think it's relatively okay to have a simpler leg, especially something that can be simple.

Baby's reasoning refers to two similar reasoning methods that use one reasoning method to get the reasoning of the latter example.

A simple example of analogical reasoning, because this would make everything sit in our mode and make it possible to do it directly according to the author's ID.

Reasoning by analogy, simple to do is life. It's very good, it's very good, I think it's relatively okay.

There are many simple examples in the group, and we can find them all in the algebra books.

The explanation of analogical reasoning is based on the premise that two things have the same property of some property, and the other properties of two things are the same conclusion. For example, sound and light have many properties in common—straight line propagation, reflection, refraction, and interference; From this it follows that since sound has a fluctuating nature, light also has a fluctuating nature.

This is analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning has probability. If there are very few common properties confirmed in the premise, and the common properties have little to do with the deduced properties, such analogical reasoning is extremely unreliable and is called mechanical analogy.

Word Decomposition Explanation of Analogy Based on the similarity of two things in certain characteristics, it is inferred that they may also be similar in other characteristics. Whether the conclusions deduced by this method of reasoning are contingent and correct remains to be proved in practice to explain in detail a method of reasoning, according to the similarity of two things in certain characteristics, to make their explanations in which they contain the characteristics of other reasoning Careful interpretation of the reasoning Inference and sorting out the rhetoric is too funny, the intention is broad, the reasoning is old, and the hatred is redundant.;; Southern Chaoliang; Xiao Qi's "Collected Memoirs" leads to conceptual or theoretical logical terms through repeated examination of a subject or material, and often without experimental proof or the introduction of new information.

By one or several are considered.

<> 1. Horizontal and vertical comparison method.

The horizontal and vertical comparison method, as the name suggests, is to first make a horizontal comparison, and then carry out a vertical comparison. So what exactly is the comparison? In fact, horizontal comparison is to horizontally compare the logical relationship between several terms in the question stem; Longitudinal comparison is to compare whether the logical relationship between the question stem and the option is consistent or similar.

Therefore, in the process of solving the problem by analogy, the first step needs to judge the relationship between the terms of the question stem, so as to select the option of the corresponding relationship according to the relationship between the items of the question stem.

2. Choosing words to form syntax.

Word choice and syntax, as the name suggests, is to make simple sentences on two or three groups of words in the question stem, judge the relationship between the terms, and find the same or similar relationship between the items in the options. This method is still two steps, firstly, the words of the question stem are simply made into sentences to establish a connection and find a certain correspondence; Secondly, the options are formed one by one, and the correspondence between the options and the question stem after sentence formation is judged to be consistent.

Reasoning by analogy. What type of reasoning is it? It can't be with.

Inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning.

Standing on your feet? There has been a lot of debate in the logic community on these issues. Those who advocate that analogical reasoning and inductive and deductive reasoning have the same mode of reasoning.

Logician. There are three different views on the specific attribution of analogical reasoning:

The first view is that analogical reasoning is inductive reasoning. There are those who hold this view:

Diderot. , Stert.

Luo Guo. Witsch and some of our own logicians. They conclude that the conclusion is beyond the scope of the premise, and the conclusion has.

Probability. This feature distinguishes the type of inference. According to this classification criterion, we can certainly incorporate analogical reasoning into inductive reasoning, but we have to make the conclusion not beyond the scope of the premise and the conclusion inevitable, as G. Krauss did.

Complete induction.

expelled from inductive reasoning, and attributed to it".

Propositional logic. Or.

Predicate logic. forms of deductive reasoning. Moreover, this criterion of classification does not take into account the general characteristics of inductive reasoning, from the particular to the general. Just like the famous logician of our country.

Jin Yuelin. It was noted: ".

Analogy. It is not an individual to universal reasoning, but other inductive reasoning is an individual to universal reasoning. It is for this reason that some logicians believe that analogy is not an inductive reasoning.

Accordingly, we believe that it is reluctant and inappropriate to incorporate analogical reasoning into inductive reasoning. The second view is that analogical reasoning is deductive reasoning.

Logicians who hold this view have.

Spencer. Losky,

Bakla. sections, etc. For example, the Bacla cult implicitly teaches that analogy is a special deduction, "The peculiarity of this reasoning is that it plays a role.

Straight syllogism.

Medium. The effect is not the same, just similar nouns. The famous Soviet logician B. Kopnin refuted this:

All reasoning, including analogy and induction, can of course take the form of a syllogism, but neither analogy nor induction becomes deductive. Based on this, we believe that it is also reluctant and inappropriate to incorporate analogical reasoning into deductive reasoning. The third view is that:

Analogical reasoning is inductive-deductive, elisive reasoning. As.

Aristotle.

Treat analogical reasoning as a sequential combination of induction and deduction. Some people in the domestic logic circles have also proposed: "The analogy in expression should be an abbreviated form of induction and deduction to be more precise."

As we will see below, analogical reasoning can indeed be reduced to an abbreviated form of inductive and deductive conjunction, but the process of analogical reasoning is essentially different from the sequential process of induction-deduction.