Analogical arguments, such as those used by political cartoonists, require evaluation through tests of true premises and proper form. These tests assess factual accuracy and logical structure to determine the argument's validity and persuasiveness. Applying these tests aids in sharpening critical thinking skills.
In the realm of editorial content, analogical arguments are often used to highlight similarities between two seemingly dissimilar conditions or concepts. As an example, a political cartoonist might use analogy to compare the actions of a current political figure to a historical one, thereby commenting on the current figure's policies or decisions. When analyzing such an analogical argument, two critical tests must be applied: true premises and proper form. The true premises test evaluates the accuracy of the underlying facts or principles invoked in the analogy. For instance, if a cartoonist draws a parallel between the sprawl of contemporary social media and the reach of historical broadcast media, the argument's premises must be scrutinized for factual accuracy. The proper form test examines the logical structure of the argument to ensure that if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows.
In our example, a critical analysis might involve questioning whether the analogy correctly assumes both forms of media have fundamentally similar impacts on society, when significant differences in technology and user engagement may exist. By applying these tests, readers sharpen their critical thinking skills and can better gauge the persuasiveness and validity of analogical reasoning in various forms of written and visual argumentation.