A famous example of this is the old proverb “Don’t change horses in the middle of the stream” often used as an analogy to convince voters not to change administrations in the middle of a war or other crisis. But the analogy is misleading because there are so many differences between the things compared. In what ways is a war or political crisis like a stream? And is a nation of millions of people comparable to a man trying to get across a stream? Analogy is false and unfair when it compares two things that have little in common and assumes that they are identical. Senator Yakalot tries to hoodwink his listeners with false analogy when he says, “Trying to take Americans out of the kind of cars they love is as undemocratic as trying to deprive them of the right to vote.”
Of course, analogies can be drawn that are reasonable and fair. It would be reasonable, for example, to compare the results of busing in one small Southern city with the possible results of another, if the towns have the same kind of history, population, and school policy. We can decide for ourselves whether an analogy is false or fair by asking, “Are the things being compared truly alike in significant ways? Do the differences between them affect the comparison?
Begging the question
Actually, the name of this device is rather misleading, because it does not appear in the form of a question. Begging the question occurs when, in discussing a questionable or debatable point, a person assumes as already established the very point that he is trying to prove. For example, “No thinking citizen could approve such a completely unacceptable policy as this one.” But isn’t the question of whether or not the policy is acceptable the very point to be established? Senator Yakalot begs the question when he announces that his opponent’s plan won’t work “because it is unworkable.”
We can protect ourselves against this kind of faulty logic by asking, “What is assumed in this statement? Is the assumption reasonable, or does it need more proof?”