False Analogy – an elaborate comparison of two things that are too dissimilar.
 

Analogies are elaborate, point-by-point comparisons.  They are most helpful when a writer is trying to explain something that is unfamiliar to his readers by explaining it in more familiar terms.  Authors must compare two subjects carefully to ensure that they have essential features in common.  Questionable analogies arise when a reader can point to one or more significant differences between the two subjects that are being compared in an analogy.
 

CAUTION!

Historians often use analogies when comparing today’s events to the past.  Studying history can show us that the problems we face today are age-old; if we study past outcomes, then we can better understand the course of action that we should take today.  We must be careful, however: discussing one war as analogous to another war may create problems.  For example, attempting to equate the Vietnam War to the Persian Gulf conflict will quickly become problematic.  Although several similarities exist (both involved the united States, both utilized helicopters, tanks, and ground forces, etc.), soon we realize that the differences between these two wars are greater (their purpose, their public support, their cost, their duration, etc.).  If the differences outweigh the similarities, however, when making a comparison, then you have a contrast, not an analogy.  Context is everything.
 

Unfortunately, we do not have any one foolproof method of determining when analogies are legitimate or faulty.  Ask yourself this key question to determine if the analogy is sound: “Do the two analogous items differ in any essential and relevant respect, or are they different only in unimportant aspects?”  If the differences appear to be greater than the similarities then the analogy might be fallacious.  Bear in mind that no single analogy is perfect, so this technique should be used only to illustrate foreign issues by placing them in common terms.  Analogies should not be used to carry the bulk of an argument’s explanation.
 

EXAMPLE 1

A citizen with all the answers argues: “Clogged arteries require surgery to clear them; our clogged highways require equally drastic measures.”

This image may be an effective enough analogy to entice a crowd's emotions, but it does not properly compare the essential issues.  “Surgery” requires trained professionals who use complex medical and technical equipment to repair a damaged body.  Usually, the best remedy for a clogged highway is simply to lay more asphalt — which ultimately means more taxpayer money and a lot of unskilled workers.  Because surgery is not similar to an appeal for money, this analogy is misleading.  A speaker’s credibility falls when his comparisons break down this easily.
 

EXAMPLE 2

A self-proclaimed expert says: “Education cannot prepare men and women for marriage.  Trying to educate them for marriage is like trying to teach them to swim without allowing them to go into the water.  It can’t be done.”

Educating someone about life issues (like respect, responsibility, and communication) is essential to preparing that person for the commitment of marriage.  Training someone to move muscles and breathe without fear of drowning are important skills to master to become a good swimmer, but these are entirely different skills than those needed for marriage.  Some people make great spouses and lousy swimmers because they differ in their physical and mental skills, respectively.  Some people are faster learners in some areas and slower in others.  Some people learn only from experience, but knowledge can still assist them along the way.  This analogy cannot be considered valid.  This speaker also commits the invincible ignorance fallacy and a version of the either/or fallacy.

 
EXAMPLE 3

Another Clinton for says: “Bill Clinton has no experience of serving in the military.  To have Bill Clinton become president, and thus commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, is like electing some passer-by on the street to fly the space shuttle.”

Just like most of us, President Clinton did not serve on a military battlefield, but that did not reduce his ability to make important decisions (especially ones that did not involve the military, such as budget negotiations, welfare reform, and health care reform).  Although Commander in Chief is one of the President’s duties, his deficiencies in military knowledge cam be overcome by intelligence and an excellent staff.  The author of this analogy suggests that the President is devoid of all essential skills to be a good President, which is not valid.  Would a space shuttle captain be better prepared to be the president?  Can Mr. Clinton fly the Atlantis?  These occupations and skills are not parallel, thus creating a false analogy, distortion, and slanting.