Analogy for Rhetors.

In an earlier issue of this journal William Sacksteder explored Logic of Analogy through a series of twelve positions, leading to the view that is not a relatively poor use of logic; rather, logic is a relatively good use of analogy. His perspective of analogy and his mode of presentation were philosophical.1 It is our purpose to explore the concept from a rhetorical perspective, determining rhetorical functions which the analogy may serve and the adequacy with which those functions performed. I Authors of basic speech communication texts and texts dealing with persuasion and argumentation typically treat analogy as a form of argument or, less frequently, as a method of amplification. Analogies simply classified as or figurative. The literal analogy compares members of the same class; two parallel cases or situations categorized in the same order of experience so presented as to suggest that what is known to be true in one situation is very likely to be true of the other. Though the literal analogy is treated as a rhetorical argument, it is typically evaluated in terms of logicai adequacy rather than rhetorical efficacy. Figurative analogies characterized as even less reliable and rigorous than literal analogies because they draw comparisons between members of different classes of experience. Indeed, one writer carries the emphasis on stylistic aspects of the figurative analogy to its ultimate, saying that figurative analogies are used more often in poetry than in serious speech-communication.2 This Statement leaves little doubt that figurative analogies seen as calculated to engender emotional impressions rather than intellectual acceptance. But it makes little difference which category is in focus; students warned that analogies weak, risky, false, or, at best, less rigorous than other forms of argu