We investigate the relative probabilistic support afforded by the combination
of two analogies based on possibly different, structural similarity
(as opposed to e.g. shared predicates) within the context of Pure
Inductive Logic and under the assumption of Language Invariance. We
show that whilst repeated analogies grounded on the same structural
similarity only strengthen the probabilistic support this need not be
the case when combining analogies based on different structural similarities.
That is, two analogies may provide less support than each