How can you make your expression impeccable?

First, you need to understand logic.

But in order to avoid making logical mistakes when speaking, it is not necessary to study logic systematically.

In order to speak and write logically, we may only need to know what logical errors people tend to make when speaking? Why do these logical errors make expressions imprecise? How do we attack others if they make these logical errors? We will pay attention as we speak, and slowly the logic in our words will become more and more rigorous, making it difficult to refute.

Among the common logical errors in expressions, inappropriate analogies occur particularly frequently. And this mistake is quite extreme. Almost as soon as an analogy appears, others can attack you for making an inappropriate analogy. Why is this?

Let’s first look at what Mozi said.

There are two sentences in the "Mo Jing" like this:

"There is no comparison between different species, only measurement."

"Which one is longer, wood or night? Which one is more noble, Zhi or Su? Jue, Qin, Xing or Jia? Which one is higher, Mi or He? "

These two sentences seem to be difficult to understand, but Translate it in vernacular and everyone should understand.

Heterogeneities cannot be compared because the standards of quantity are different. For example, wood and night, one is the length of space and the other is the length of time. Which one do you think is longer? Wisdom and corn, one is spiritual wealth and the other is material wealth, who do you think is more? Which of the four is more valuable: official title, kinship, virtue, or price? Who do you think is taller, Mi as an animal or Crane as a bird? Cicadas and harps, who do you think is sadder? There are essential differences between them, and forced comparison will only lead to absurd conclusions.

The key to Mozi’s two sentences is to show that when identifying or attacking logical errors in improper analogies, the focus is to find the essential difference between the two, such as the two sides of the pairwise analogy in the above example. , the measurement standards are different.

Another example is Lincoln and Kennedy, the two presidents in American history. The various coincidences between them can make people doubt whether there are past and present lives. For example:

Lincoln in Entered Congress in 1846, and Kennedy entered Congress in 1946, 100 years apart.

Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, and Kennedy was elected President of the United States in 1960, 100 years apart.

Both men were assassinated on Friday, both shot in the head. The murderers were all southerners.

The presidential heirs of both men are Southerners, and their names are both Johnson.

Andrew who succeeded Lincoln. Andrew Johnson was born in 1808. Lyndon Kennedy, who succeeded Kennedy. Lyndon B. Johnson was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln’s assassin, was born in 1839. Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was born in 1939.

Lincoln's assassin ran away from a theater and was captured in a warehouse. Kennedy's assassin escaped from a warehouse and was captured in a theater. Both murderers were shot before the trial began.

Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy, and Kennedy’s secretary was named Lincoln, and their secretaries both advised the president not to go to the site of the assassination.

Since there are so many similarities between them, let me make an analogy now: Lincoln's parents are descendants of British immigrants, and Kennedy's parents must also be descendants of British immigrants.

This is a typical analogy formula: if A has attributes a, b, c, d, and B has attributes a, b, c; then, B may have attribute d.

However, we can also think of the fallacy in this example: Lincoln and Kennedy are two completely different people after all! For example, in the political careers of the two men, Lincoln failed to run for the Senate in 1854, failed to run for Vice President in 1856, and failed to run for the Senate again in 1858. Two years later, he was very successful and successfully ran for the President; while Kennedy had a smooth journey, and in 1946 He was elected to the House of Representatives three times in 1948 and 1950, and to the Senate in 1952 and 1958. Lincoln fought and lost many times, while Kennedy cheated and cheated all the way. It can be seen that the two people are very different.

Another example is the following statement: "Japanese and German companies generally implement a lifetime employment system for those positions that require high professional skills; the lifetime employment system provides a guarantee for their competitiveness. This proves It is not necessarily a bad thing to eliminate 'lifetime' and 'iron rice bowl', and it also shows that Chinese enterprises should develop towards long-term employment relationships."

The conclusion is that life-long employment is a premise, and life-long employment is a prerequisite. A product of China's specific historical conditions, it is the same whether you work or not, whether you work more or less; the lifetime employment system does not have this meaning.

The lifelong employment system in Japan and Germany has achieved very good results, which may be inseparable from their specific environment and specific historical stage. Such good results may not be achieved in China. This is an inappropriate analogy. Moreover, Japan and Germany do not implement the lifetime employment system in all enterprises, and only use it in positions with higher professional skills requirements. The conclusion calls for it to be extended to all enterprises in China. The scope has also been expanded.

There are many examples of inappropriate analogies in daily life. For example, many people ask questions online after learning the "Triangle Theorem": "Triangles are the most stable structure, why can't love triangles work?" But are triangles and love triangles really the same? Love triangles don’t have to be triangular.

There is also a boss who asks you to change the bucket of water for the drinking fountain. You complain: "Why don't you ask colleague A to do it?" The leader then says: "You study water conservancy, and he studies computers and repairs them." I will naturally ask him to do it. "Look, you and colleague A are different, so asking you to do it does not mean asking him to do it. Of course, the leadership analogy is also called an inappropriate analogy.

There is a famous saying in the debate world that "all analogies are inappropriate analogies." After all, the things used for analogy cannot be the same thing. Different things must be different, and this essentially different place can be used to attack the inappropriate analogy.

About the author: Zhu Mu, once served as a logic subject teacher for the postgraduate entrance examination and civil service examination, and is now a newspaper reporter.