attempting to falsify alternative explanations or by demonstrating the likelihood of the favoured conclusion, given a set of more or less disputable assumptions. For example, when a patient disp lays certain symptoms, there might be various possible causes, but one of these is preferred above others as being more probable Analogical reasoning Analogical reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the particular. An example follows Premise 1: Socrates is human and socrates died Premise 2: Plato is human Conclusion Plato will die Analogical reasoning can be viewed as a form of inductive reasoning dubious-discussI, since the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. However, the traditional view is that inductive reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the general and thus analogical reasoning is distinct from inductive reasoning. [146] Fallacious reasoning: Logical fallacy, Formal fallacy, and Informal fallacy Flawed reasoning in arguments is known as fallacious reasoningattempting to falsify alternative explanations or by demonstrating the likelihood of the favoured conclusion, given a set of more or less disputable assumptions. For example, when a patient displays certain symptoms, there might be various possible causes, but one of these is preferred above others as being more probable. Analogical reasoning Analogical reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the particular. An example follows: Premise 1: Socrates is human and Socrates died. Premise 2: Plato is human. Conclusion: Plato will die. Analogical reasoning can be viewed as a form of inductive reasoning[dubious – discuss], since the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. However, the traditional view is that inductive reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the general, and thus analogical reasoning is distinct from inductive reasoning.[46] Fallacious reasoning： Logical fallacy, Formal fallacy, and Informal fallacy Flawed reasoning in arguments is known as fallacious reasoning