An example:
It is wrong for the government to provide marijuana to the public just as it is wrong for people to sell marijuana on the streets to other people.
This analogy is not sufficient because the government may be providing marijuana for different reasons than a person selling it on the street. The government may be allowing the use of marijuana to individuals that need to relieve their pain whereas people selling it on the street may be drug dealers looking for quick cash. There are not enough premises to back this analogy up; therefore it is not convincing in an argument.
Additionally, when evaluating an analogy, consider these 7 questions: (Epstein 257)
- Is this an argument? What is the conclusion?
- What is the comparison?
- What are the premises? (one or both sides of the comparison)
- What are the similarities?
- Can we state the similarities as premises & find a general principal that covers the two sides? Do the differences matter?
- Is the argument strong or valid? Is it good?
I also did a post on analogies. The site that I looked up had very simaler information, specificly comparing the two items and then making a conclusion about them. I liked your example because it showed how an analogy can not work, which helped me better understand them as a whole. Your example put more emphasis on the premises of each argument, which made it much more relatable in terms of what we have been learning so far in this class. I liked step 5 where it breaks down exactly how to use the comparison of the two items in question and asks the most important question of all- do the differences matter?
ReplyDelete