Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

Reasoning about analogical arguments is known to be subjectto a variety of cognitive biases, and a lack of clarity aboutwhich factors can be considered strengths or weaknesses ofan analogical argument. This can make it difficult both to de-sign empirical experiments to study how people reason aboutanalogical arguments, and to develop scalable tutoring toolsfor teaching how to reason and analyze analogical arguments.To address these concerns, we describe WG-A (Warrant Game— Analogy), a framework for people to analyze analogical ar-guments based on Bartha’s (2010) Articulation Model of ana-logical argumentation. We carry out two experiments designedto probe WG-A’s effectiveness in improving participants’ abil-ity to reason about analogical arguments and argumentation ingeneral, and argue that WG-A is a promising approach, thoughit is in need of further development.