*the relationship between mathematical and analogical reasoning;

  Graphic representation of the structure mapping process that explains analogical reasoning.

Logicians analyze how analogical reasoning is used in .

If analogical reasoning is required to conform only to a simpleformal schema, the restriction is too permissive. Inferences areauthorized that clearly should not pass muster… The naturalresponse has been to develop more elaborate formaltemplates… The familiar difficulty is that theseembellished schema never seem to be quite embellished enough; therealways seems to be some part of the analysis that must be handledintuitively without guidance from strict formal rules. (2012: 1)

Figure 3: Comparison of logical and analogical reasoning

订阅关于Analogical Reasoning in Children的评论:

In theory, then, stare decisis strikes a healthy balancebetween conservative and progressive social values. Thisjustification is pragmatic. It pre-supposes a common set ofsocial values, and links the use of analogical reasoning to optimalpromotion of those values. Notice also that justification occursat the level of the practice in general; individual analogicalarguments sometimes go astray. A full examination of the natureand foundations for stare decisis is beyond the scope of thisentry, but it is worth asking the question: might it be possibleto generalize the justification for stare decisis? Is aparallel pragmatic justification available for analogical arguments ingeneral?

Robins, S., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Schema training in analogical reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 529-538.

In ancient Chinese texts one finds many cases of « analogical reasoning » i.e. argumentation by comparison of the situation under discussion with another one which is similar to the former in some respect(s). One also finds cases of « demonstration by example » when some « general » situation is explained with one or several examples 2. For the modem European reader, trying to apply criteria of strictness based on the notion of inference from axioms, these Chinese reasonings seem to be deprived of the persuasive force they obviously had for those who wrote and read them in China many centuries ago 3.

*ways in which we might promote development of mathematical and analogical reasoning in young children.

One of the most important chapter of Reasoning aptitude test is Analogy. Few reasoning questions in your exam will surely come from this chapter. Now here we will discuss some questions on Analogy reasoning and also the process of getting the solution. This will help you to do the Analogy reasoning very easily and quickly. In exam, reasoning questions can be solved very easily and quickly using reasoning shortcut tricks. Here we will show you the method of “How to solve Reasoning using shortcut tricks”.Analogical reasoning is a method of processing information that compares the similarities between new and understood concepts, then uses those similarities to gain understanding of the new concept. It is a form of because it strives to provide understanding of what is likely to be true, rather than deductively proving something as fact. This method can be used by both children and adults as a way to learn new information or as part of a persuasive argument. Early philosophers like Aristotle considered thinking andmemory in an integrated way. The doctrine of associationismexplained human thinking by means of the content andorganization of human memory. Later on as science developed andpsychology became an experimental science, researchers tendedto analyze simple and separate faculties of the human mind inorder to be able to study them experimentally. Nowadays we havea huge pile of facts about both memory and reasoning (andanalogical reasoning in particular). The problem is that thesetwo research communities do not speak to each other often. As aresult, facts established in one of the fields are oftenneglected and ignored in the other.The study of the process and effectiveness of analogical reasoning is applied to many fields. Since demonstrate the likelihood of similarities rather than factually proving them, lawyers may use analogical arguments during cases that don’t have a lot of evidence. Such an argument points out a similarity shared by two ideas or objects, then uses that shared similarity to argue that the ideas are likely to have other things in common as well. For example, a lawyer may form an analogy between his or her client and a past court trial for the same offense where the person was found not guilty. Since the circumstances of the charges are similar, a lawyer will argue the outcomes should be similar as well. Analogical reasoning is based on the ’s ability to form patterns by association. The brain may be able to understand new concepts more easily if they are perceived as being part of a pattern. If a new concept is compared to something the brain already knows, it may be more likely that the brain will store the new information more readily. RMTS is particularly well suited for testing the abilities of non-human animals, as it poses an analogy problem in a strictly visual manner, not relying in any way on linguistic skills. In essence, success requires the subject to not only make a “first order comparison” between same and different, but also to make a “second order comparison” by applying this underlying distinction to a novel environment. Many researchers consider this ability to lie at heart of analogical reasoning.(In this short essay I assume that the type of analogical reasoning used in common law cases is the same as that used to interpret or apply statutes. In a longer piece I would not reject this bald claim, but qualify it.)Notwithstanding these prior findings, however, two studies published in the last few months now pose a challenge to the “profound disparity” concept, suggesting that a suitable testing environment can showcase robust analogical reasoning skills in non-apes.