Given below are two statements : Statement I: The statement — ‘A person…
2022
Given below are two statements :
Statement I: The statement — ‘A person without a purpose is like a car with no engine. And that’s a useless piece of machinery’ is an example of analogical argument.
Statement II: The statement — ‘A person with no purpose is like a car with no engine. And that’s a useless piece of machinery’ is an example of non argumentative use of analogy.
In the light of the above statements, choose the correct answer from the options given below:
Answer: D. Statement I is false but Statement II is true — ConceptAn analogical argument presents relevant similarities as premises and uses them to support a distinct further conclusion. A non-argumentative analogy…
- A.
Both Statement I and Statement II are true
- B.
Both Statement I and Statement II are false
- C.
Statement I is true but Statement II is false
- D.
Statement I is false but Statement II is true
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept
An analogical argument presents relevant similarities as premises and uses them to support a distinct further conclusion.
A non-argumentative analogy uses comparison to clarify, emphasize, or create an image; it does not offer a premise-to-conclusion inference.
Feature | Analogical argument | Non-argumentative analogy |
|---|---|---|
Primary role | Inferential support | Illustration or emphasis |
Required structure | Stated similarities support a further claim | The comparison itself conveys the idea |
Application
“Without a purpose” and “with no purpose” are synonymous here, so both statements classify the same comparison.
The quotation compares a purposeless person with a car that has no engine and uses the car image to convey ineffectiveness.
Although the image conveys the speaker’s evaluation, it does not state independently established similarities as evidence for a separate conclusion; the comparison performs the explanatory and rhetorical work itself.
Cross-check / Contrast
Statement I treats the quotation as an analogical argument, but the required premise-to-conclusion support is not articulated.
Statement II treats it as a non-argumentative analogy, matching its illustrative and emphatic function.
Therefore, Statement I is false and Statement II is true.