Page 245 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

212 Part 3 Putting Theory Into Practice

Tips and Tactics
Using Comparisons or Analogies

• Make sure your audience is familiar with at least one part of the analogy.
• Use literal analogies for proof and fi gurative analogies for clarity and
emphasis.
• Show that similarities outweigh the differences.
• The similarities, not the differences, should be most relevant.

Let’s begin with whether or not the audience is familiar with one of the parts of
the analogy. Suppose a speaker told you that a euphonium was like an enthymeme.
What? Neither term is likely to be familiar, so the analogy is worthless (it is also
wrong—but that’s another story). We have to be sure our audience understands
the point of comparison being made. There is a difference between literal and
fi gurative analogies. A literal analogy claims that two different instances are re-
ally similar. For example, a lot of people compared September 11, 2001, to De-
cember 7, 1941 (the date on which Pearl Harbor was bombed). This is certainly
a literal comparison—both were attacks on U.S. soil by foreign enemies (Hawaii
was not yet a state, but it was a U.S. territory at the time of the attack). A figura-
tive analogy, on the other hand, is a device of language used to enhance the effec-
tiveness of a speech. A fi gurative analogy clearly seeks to establish some similar-
ity between the two items being compared, but no one could reasonably argue
that they are really alike. Saying September 11 was like being sucker-punched is
not literally comparing two things that are the same. In the fi rst instance, thou-
sands died and the nation was plunged into war. In the second instance, about
all that is hurt is the victim’s pride. There’s nothing wrong with fi gurative analo-
gies—they can add a lot to a speech—but they don’t constitute proof in the same
way that literal ones can. There is no logical force to such arguments.
Next, in a good analogy or comparison, the similarities should outweigh the
differences. If they do not, the analogy will not be very powerful. For example,
when comparing September 11 and Pearl Harbor, there are clearly many simi-
larities. However, unlike Pearl Harbor, our attackers did not identify themselves.
Rather than being a state, we ultimately learned that our enemies were a shad-
owy network of terrorists scattered in many places. The tactics that worked to
win World War II would not necessarily be the same as those needed in the War
on Terror.
Finally, the similarities, rather than the differences, should be most relevant
to the claim being made. In the comparison of 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, the differ-
ence in fi ghting terrorists as compared to a conventional army has made the
War on Terror a long-term effort that will not end in a dramatic surrender cer-
emony as did World War II.

Causal Warrants

Reasoning based on a causal warrant claims that a cause will produce or has
causal warrant
produced an effect. Reasoning from cause to effect involves predicting what will
A statement that a cause
will produce or has pro- happen if some action is taken. For example, it is the claim of Al Gore’s fi lm, An
duced an effect. Inconvenient Truth, that unless the world reduces its use of so-called greenhouse
glasses, global warming will cause ocean levels to rise—fl ooding low lying areas

8/24/07 3:20:58 PM
M4344.indb 212 8/24/07 3:20:58 PM
M4344.indb 212