Whoever makes a thesis (assertion) must prove it with arguments. The more strongly an argument is, in this case we speak of the quality of the argument, the better can be the asserted assertion. We distinguish between different types of arguments, including the analogizing argument, which equates different areas.
The adjective analog means approximately similar or comparable. Consequently, we understand, under an analogizing argument, an utterance that translates a different area of life to the current theme and thus equates it. Let us look at an example.
From the best scenario, nothing will happen if everyone
just thinking about yourself and wanting the lead role.
The same is true for discussions.
An analogizing argument thus consists of two parts. And from the first, which leads a different sphere of life (1) and the second, with which the first is equated (2).
In the above example, the statement that a screenplay only results in a good film, if not everyone thinks, is related to the discussion in a discussion. A discussion is thus only profitable when all participants in the course of the course of the course of study are not only concerned with the debate. Let us look at another example.
Smoking should be prohibited in public.
After all, the smoking of grass is also forbidden.
In this example, two statements are linked and equated. It is argued that the use of cannabis in the public is prohibited, which is why tobacco smoking should also be prohibited. Thus, two themes, which in this case even resemble each other, are interwoven with each other.
Note: Basically, an analogizing argument can connect all areas of life together. However, it has a stronger effect if the respective areas are similar or at least have a similar basis. Otherwise the comparison or the analogy is sometimes problematic.
Problems with the analogizing argument
Of course it is allowed to use an analogizing argument in a discussion. But the whole thing becomes quite problematic if the analogy or the comparison on the hair is involved. Then the construction is not valid.
The problem is in this case that one always finds an interface when comparing objects or situations of different kinds and can conclude that the objects are similar in some respects, but not in others. Let’s take an example.
Rats and humans are similar when we look at their DNA.
The drug showed no side effects in rats.
The medicine is harmless to humans.
The problem now is that an animal experiment may not necessarily be the only basis for the introduction of a drug that sometimes has serious effects on the human body. The analogy argument thus only applies to a limited extent in this example.
Accordingly, it is important to form an analogy between two domains whose similarities not only function verbally but are also sufficient. Sufficient means that something will necessarily lead to the respective result. So, in the example, it is safe that the drug is safe.
Note: In principle, the argument is based on the fact that something of the type A has the properties C and D. Another of type B also has the properties C and D. In addition, A has the feature Z. The conclusion is that B must also have the property Z.
This conclusion, however, can be deceptive. Therefore, in the case of the analogizing argument, it is absolutely necessary to check whether the similarity is sufficient, or inevitably lead to the occurrence of the respective event or not, since otherwise the thesis can not be supported.
Overview: The most important point to the analogizing argument at a glance
An analogizing argument, also an analogy argument, transfers the qualities of a thing into a different sphere of life. This works all the better, the closer the two areas are, and the analogy remains comprehensible.
However, it becomes problematic when a certain property is transferred from one area to another, but the similarity between the two is not sufficient. The areas are similar in some respects, but the analogy does not occur.
In addition to the factual argument, the argument of authority, the plausibility argument, and the indirect or normative argument, an analogizing argument is a serious practice in rhetoric, and it is helpful to rhetorically substantiate a contested assertion.
