#1

Question

Here's my argument:

Alice went to Lincoln High and earned a college scholarship.
Ben went to Lincoln High and earned a college scholarhip.
Carol went to Lincoln High and earned a college scholarship.
Dan went to Lincoln High and earned a college scholarship.
Ellen goes to Lincoln High.
Therefore, Ellen will win a scholarship to college.

Now I am to determine wheather the addition of various premises weakens or strengthens the argument in terms of positive or negative analogy, relevance, and/or the number of observed cases. These are the premises I'm having difficulty with

1.) Alice, Ben, and Ellen took advanced courses in high school, whereas Carol and Dan did not take advanced courses.
(I would say that the argument is strengthened by increasing the negative analogy among the observed cases, but I'm not sure since it states that Ellen is like some of the other students in one regard way but unlike other students in that regard.)

2.) Alice, Ben, Carol, Dan got between 600 and 650 on their college boards, whereas Ellen got between 700 and 750 on her college boards.
(I would think that the addition of this premise would weaken the argument because it would be increasing the negative analogy between the observed and unobserved cases, but given an additional part to the exercise, I have reason to believe that it strengthens the argument.)

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.

Answer 1

Although I am not trained in formal logic, it would seem that whatever traits — which are linked to getting scholarships — Ellen has that equal or exceed those of the others would lead to predicting that she would get the scholarship. In other words, they would strengthen the arguments.

I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.