For the following argument by analogy: (1) Determine whether it is an inductive analogy, or a consistency analogy (i.e., what the text calls an a priori analogy); (2) Identify the primary subject and the analogue; (3) Identify the relevant similarities the arguer presents between the primary subject and the analogue; (4) Identify the conclusion of the argument (what is the "too be inferred" characteristic?); (5) Evaluate the argument, and, if appropriate, point out any fallacy committed in it.

If we want to see the direction we should take in public universities, we should look south. The Americans have some of the great public universities in the world: think of Berkeley and Michigan, for instance. And we can do the same in English speaking Canada. Like the US we have a relatively linguistically homogenous, if ethnically and culturally diverse, population. Both are wealthy countries with longstanding commitments to public education, recognizing both the social and economic benefits. What the Americans have that we do not is a commitment by governments to make a small number of their public schools great, via government support and tax codes that encourage people to make donations to them as well. If Canada's governments were to make a similar investment of public dollars and revise the tax code to give breaks to donors to universities, we would soon have Berkeley-caliber public universities on this side of the border, too. 

The conclusion of a deductive argument by analogy is required by consistency or rejecting the conclusion while accepting the premises involves contradiction. Meanwhile, an inductive analogical conclusion is supported by degrees of probability.

Step-by-step explanation

1. The analogy of the article above is a form of inductive analogy because the conclusion is supported by the premises or arguments. It is stated that "we would soon have Berkeley-caliber public universities on this side of the border, too." This conclusion is constructed and supported based from the premised presented that "if the government has a good relation to the donors and the tax codes would be revised, then we would soon have a Berkeley-like premiere university.

2. An argument that draws a conclusion about one case is called the "primary subject" on the basis of its similarities to another case referred to as the "analogue".

The primary subject is that we would soon have Berkeley-caliber public universities on this side of the border, too if we would have a good relation with the government and the donors, and if the tax codes would be revised for the greater good.

However, the analogue is this: "If we want to see the direction we should take in public universities, we should look south. The Americans have some of the great public universities in the world: think of Berkeley and Michigan, for instance." This is the analogue because it is the another case which is similar to the above drawn conclusion.

3. The similarities between the primary subject and the analogue is that the arguer compares the two arguments which have a relationship with each other. The primary subject or argument is a conclusion drawn from the premises or above statements. Whereas, the analogue or second argument is the example or model that has been the basis of the conclusion. This is why the primary subject and the analogue are interrelated.

4. The conclusion that is "too be inferred" is that we would soon have a Berkeley caliber public universities on this side of the border, too if Canada's governments were to make a similar investment of public dollars and revise the tax code to give breaks to donors to universities.

5. The conclusion itself that is drawn has a fallacy or faulty reasoning. It is stated that we would soon have a Berkeley-like university if the government and the donors will have a good relationship between each other. It is a fallacy because it arrives at the conclusion immediately without a further investigation if the premises or arguments presented would be that effective.