If I argue that we should adopt a system of universal healthcare in the United States, and I reason that since it has worked in Canada it can work here, what type of reasoning am I using? Group of answer choices
causal reasoning
synthesis deductive reasoning
The correct answer and explanation is:
The correct answer is reasoning by analogy.
When you argue that since universal healthcare works in Canada, it could also work in the United States, you are using reasoning by analogy. This type of reasoning involves comparing two situations or systems based on their similarities. The underlying idea is that if something has worked in one context (Canada), it may work in another context (the U.S.), assuming the situations are sufficiently alike.
In this case, you are suggesting that the healthcare system in Canada, which is widely seen as successful, could be transferred or adapted to the U.S. The success of Canada’s system is being used as an example to argue for the potential success of a similar system in the U.S.
However, while reasoning by analogy can be persuasive, it has limitations. The U.S. and Canada, while similar in many ways, are distinct in areas such as population size, demographics, healthcare infrastructure, political systems, and economic conditions. These differences can affect whether the Canadian system would work in the U.S. as expected. For example, the U.S. has a significantly larger and more diverse population, with varying healthcare needs, which might introduce challenges that do not exist in Canada. Additionally, the political landscape in the U.S. is different, with differing attitudes toward government involvement in healthcare.
Thus, reasoning by analogy is an effective tool for presenting arguments, but it is important to recognize the nuances and differences between the two systems. For a robust argument, further evidence, analysis, and consideration of these factors would be needed to support the claim fully.