There is no difference in the value of the argumentation technique itself, only the difference in the role of the argumentation. Using one argumentation method at the most appropriate time to achieve your own argumentation purpose is the most perfect method.
Explain the different usages between the two from the following three points:
1. Differences in attributes:
The analogy argument uses two identical Properties of things are compared. Thing A (referring to the object) has certain attributes, thus proving that thing B (referring to the subject) also has certain attributes. Zou Ji and King Qi are both members of the ruling class, and they have the same class attributes. Zou Ji used his own experience: his wife is a private minister, his concubine is afraid of his ministers, and he asks for his help from his ministers, so he is more beautiful than Mr. Xu. It can be deduced that the King of Qi, who is also the ruler, also has similar attributes: all the ladies in the palace are surrounded by the four kings, all the ministers in the court are afraid of the king, and everyone in the four realms seeks help from the king, and the king is very shielded.
Metaphorical argument is an argumentation method that uses concrete things that are familiar and easy to understand to prove abstract truths that are unfamiliar and difficult to understand. The metaphor and the subject have different attributes (that is, they are not the same kind), but they only have certain similarities. For example: In "Admonition to Taizong", governing a country requires the accumulation of virtues and "those who seek the elders of trees must consolidate their roots" are things with different attributes, but there are similarities. This point is based on the rhetorical device of metaphor.
2. Difference based on the basis of argument:
The basis of argument by analogy is analogical reasoning, which should start from the facts, return to the facts, and be tested by the facts. For example, in "Zou Ji satirizes the King of Qi and accepts advice", if Zou Ji did not base his facts on his own experience, then there would be no starting point for analogical reasoning. Another example is that King Qi Wei does not have the same attributes as the analogous facts, and the correct conclusion cannot be drawn that "the king is obscure". It can be seen that the objective things (the fact that Zou Ji received unrealistic praise) play the role of confirming the subject things (the King of Qi's "covering up") in the argument.
The basis of metaphorical argument is metaphorical figures of speech, which are not necessarily real. Some situations or images can be reasonably imagined or invented, such as fables, myths, novels, etc., which can be used as metaphorical arguments. material. For example, in "Good at Building a New World", Mr. Nan Guo, who "makes a fool of himself" appears in ancient books as a typical image in a fable. It vividly illustrates some people in the revolutionary ranks who don't know how to pretend to understand. Lu Xun's "Usage Doctrine" Mencius "seeking fish from a tree" and "laughing at fifty steps a hundred steps"
3. Differences in argumentation effects:
Analogical argumentation focuses on the logic and logic of reasoning Rigor. For example, in "Zou Ji Satires the King of Qi Accepting Admonitions", the same attributes "wife's privacy", "concubine's fear" and "customer's request" are compared with "the palace wife's privacy", "courtier's fear" and "common people's request". , convincingly deduced the conclusion that "the king's concealment is too much", thus effectively convincing the King of Qi to accept the advice. Therefore, argument by analogy is the convincing admission of a certain truth through rigorous reasoning.
Metaphorical argumentation focuses on the image and concreteness of reasoning. For example, in "Admonition to Taizong", the purpose of a metaphorical argument at the beginning of the article is to explain "the importance of accumulating moral principles for the stability of the country." Since moral principles themselves are relatively vague, the reasoning may be more abstract. Therefore, we use metaphors to demonstrate, making the reasoning vivid, vivid, and easy to understand.