本文根據兩類文獻發展出一個評價類比推理的進路。這兩類談及類比推理的文獻分別是批判性思考的教科書以及科學哲學的學術著作。在評價類比推理時，批判性思考的教科書往往透過一些簡單的判準來評估相似性，從而分辨類比推理的好壞；而科學哲學文獻則是降低了相似性的重要性，並提出更加複雜的評價判準。從科學哲學的文獻中所提出的判準雖然有一些洞見，但是它們卻難以應用。相對地，批判性思考的教科書的判準雖然比較簡單，但科學哲學的文獻卻證明了這些標準是有問題的。本文的目標是發展一個可以兼顧科學哲學所描述的複雜洞見、又能如批判性思考的教科書般簡單地呈現的評價進路。

This paper draws from two bodies of literature to develop and motivate an approach for evaluating analogical reasoning. The two bodies of literature are the presentations of analogical reasoning in critical thinking textbooks and in scholarly work in the philosophy of science. The critical thinking literature evaluates analogical reasoning in terms of simple criteria that focus on assessing similarities, while the philosophy of science literature downplays the importance of similarities and proposes more complicated criteria. The criteria from the philosophy of science literature contain some genuine insights, but they are difficult to apply. In contrast, the criteria from the critical thinking textbooks are simpler, but the philosophy of science literature demonstrates that these criteria are problematic. This paper aims to develop an approach that captures the complicated insights from the philosophy of science in a form that is about as simple as the presentations in critical thinking textbooks.