Consider this dialogue:
John: If I bet you a dollar this quarter would land heads, would you accept?
John: If I bet you a dollar this nickel would land heads, would you accept?
John: Do you believe that the probabilities of the coins landing heads are different?
I seek the name of the form of the following (implicit) argument:
John: You would bet on a quarter, so why wouldn't you bet on a nickel? That is inconsistent!
What is this called, who are some philosophers that discussed it, and in what works?
Google results for "argument forms" concentrate on strictly logical arguments, e.g. modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. However this form seems more akin to
If A, Then B. A' Is Like A. A'. Not B. Therefore, Contradiction (or something Like one).
I guess it resembles some variant of modus tollens, but something seems different.
This form of argument always struck me as a powerful one, transcendent even, in a way. Whereas other forms of logical arguments (aside from being misunderstood and misused) seem to require a certain level of learned "sense" to evoke meaning, this form seems to strike some intrinsic chord in us, that even those who know nothing of "logic" inherently understand and abide by it...
I'm also interested in hearing some more clever, entertaining, and/or memorable versions of my dialogue, which I only hastily skimmed off the top of my head. (This is, in part, why I ask about prior works: I'd like to collect better examples and metaphors.)
I'm aware that humans possess subjective preferences, e.g. as in Rex Kerr's I-like-watching-quarters-flip-but-not-nickels example. Many studies have shown that human beings can be "primed" or conditioned to prefer one thing over another even against their own rationale. If it helps to redirect the focus, consider a second quarter instead of a nickel, one identical to the first as far as Jane can tell. One can poke holes in my example ad nauseam but hopefully someone gets what I mean to mean.
Said again in different words, I would like to learn more about the history and the basis of an argument such as, "This situation, and that situation, are similar. (Similar enough to justify these words.) However, you are acting one way in one situation, and a different way in another. You must stop!" (Especially in a political context, I feel this argument is most potent.)