This is (apparently) the first full book length study of analogical arguments in fourty years. Long overdue, it sets a high standard to follow. Bartha constructs many useful examples of analogical reasoning - successful, unsuccessful, historical, contemporary, etc. to build features of this novel account. The key insight is examing more of the structure of the source domain, rather than focusing purely on source-target similarities and differences. Along the way, the work of cognitive scientists (who are more interested in description, but whose vies still must be examined for compatibility) and other philosophers are carefully analyzed and borrowed from as necessary. The chief weakness of the book is scope: although the target is (factual) science and mathematics, most examples are physics, biochemistry and biology. Very few social science examples are discussed, though case law and the principle of stare decisis do make an appearance. This weakness is acknowledged (hence is not much of a weakness) and serves to limit the size of the book; it will be interesting to see if it can be generalized or made use of in other domains. Bartha also restricts scope to analogical arguments for much the same reason.

Potentially interested readers might also profitably read Kenny Easwaran's review in NDPR.