NEGOCOACH
236
Origin : Classical rhetoric

📜 Classical rhetoric

Oratory & argumentation

Aristotle ("Rhetoric"), Quintilian; C. Perelman & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, "The New Rhetoric", 1958; A. Schopenhauer, "The Art of Being Right".

Full detail in the “Origin & history” section below.

236

The Argument by Analogy

Rhetoric & verbal sparring Technique 236 / 360
Alexandre Baumberger

Author of the library

Alexandre Baumberger

Negotiation lecturer at KEDGE Business School

A rare threefold background serving negotiation: teaching, commercial justice and audit, backed by experience as a company director in Bordeaux.

  • Teaching, KEDGE Business School Negotiation lecturer since 2014 (12 years).
  • Commercial justice, Commercial Court Judge from 2018 to 2026: litigation, then insolvency proceedings.
  • Audit & advisory, over 20 years Tax, employment and financial audit in major firms, for large groups.
Full profile Contact him
In brief

The argument from analogy transfers a conclusion from a known case to the case under discussion, drawing on a similarity of structure ("negotiating this contract is like buying insurance: you pay for peace of mind"). In negotiation, it makes the unknown familiar, secures acceptance of a conclusion by transferring it from a domain where it is self-evident, and shifts the debate onto ground chosen by whoever sets out the analogy.

Save to favourites Practise this technique
Reading level

At a glance

Its family profile at a glance

Effectiveness Psychologicalimpact Discretion Preparation Relationalrisk Ethics
6.3 / 10 Tactical potential

Vigilance: moderate (4.5/10) · Preparation required: 5/10

Grounding in the source school Documented school

Indicative profile: it situates the “Rhetoric & verbal sparring” family as the Classical rhetoric school practises it, not this technique taken in isolation. Techniques from the same family and school therefore share the same profile. NEGOCOACH editorial rating out of 10, non-experimental · the higher the “relational risk” value, the more costly the technique is to the relationship.

NEGOCOACH assessment

How to read this rating

Tactical potential 6.3/10 (effectiveness, impact, discretion) and vigilance moderate (relational and ethical risk): two distinct readings, deliberately never merged into a single score that would reward risk. NEGOCOACH editorial rating calibrated from the “Rhetoric & verbal sparring” family and the “Classical rhetoric” school. Each criterion is rated out of 10; click to understand what it measures.

  • Effectiveness 7/10 · High

    How far the technique can carry the negotiation in the intended direction when it is well executed.

  • Psychological impact 6/10 · High

    Strength of the effect produced on the counterpart's perceptions, emotions and decisions.

  • Discretion 6/10 · High

    How hard it is for the other party to notice the technique is being used. A high value = very discreet.

  • Preparation 5/10 · Moderate

    The information, analysis and rehearsal required upfront to use it effectively.

  • Relational risk 3/10 · Low

    Potential cost to the relationship and to trust if the technique is spotted, refused or fails. A high value = riskier.

  • Ethics 5/10 · Moderate

    Moral acceptability: fairness, transparency and respect for the counterpart's autonomy. A high value = more defensible.

Level of evidence

Documented school

The school this technique stems from is documented by recognised work and established practice, without experimental consensus. This indicator qualifies the school, not this technique taken in isolation.

Indicative NEGOCOACH editorial rating, for teaching purposes. For “Relational risk”, a high value signals a cost to the relationship, not a quality.

Overview of The Argument from Analogy

Origin & history

The argument from analogy has been studied since Aristotlei, who ranks it among the modes of rhetorical proof under the name paradeigma. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca make it a central category of their Treatise on Argumentation (1958), distinguishing analogy proper (a relation of relations) from metaphor, a condensed analogy.

Definition and principle

The argument from analogy rests on a transfer: if A is to B what C is to D, then what holds for the known pair (A-B) is transposed to the pair under discussion (C-D). Its strength is pedagogical and persuasive: it makes things intelligible and acceptable by leaning on a familiar domain. But it is a falliblei argument: it does not prove, it suggests, and its validity depends on the relevance of the resemblance. Every analogy limps somewhere, which makes it both a powerful tool and a target.

Concrete examples of application

Application by context

The same technique, across every negotiation settings

Context 1 / 8

Sales negotiation

A software salesperson: "Choosing your ERP is like choosing foundations: no one sees them, but the whole building rests on them. You don't cut corners on foundations." The analogy justifies the investment by transferring the common sense of the building trade.

How to apply it

Pick an everyday analogy from the buyer's world (foundations, insurance, health) where your conclusion (don't cut corners) is self-evident, then transfer it to your offer.

Strengths

Makes an abstract stake tangible and secures acceptance of the extra cost through transferred obviousness.

Weaknesses

A buyer can break the analogy ("software can be swapped out, foundations can't"), turning the image against you.

Context 2 / 8

Procurement negotiation

The buyer: "Paying a lifetime subscription for a tool that will keep changing is like paying full price for a smartphone knowing it will be obsolete in two years." The analogy justifies a demand for tiered pricing or flexibility.

How to apply it

Craft an analogy that exposes the risk in the seller's offer (obsolescence, lock-in) to legitimise your request for guarantees or a price cut.

Strengths

Makes a future risk that is hard to quantify feel concrete by tying it to a familiar experience.

Weaknesses

The seller may offer a better analogy ("it's more like a subscription that keeps updating itself") that reverses the conclusion.

Context 3 / 8

Labour negotiation

A union representative: "Always asking for more effort without recognition is like pulling on an elastic band: at some point, it snaps." The analogy makes the social risk of high-pressure management palpable.

How to apply it

Use a breaking-point analogy (elastic band, rope, overflowing vessel) to make tangible a human risk that the figures don't show.

Strengths

Gives vivid force to an argument about workplace climate that is hard to quantify.

Weaknesses

Management can counter with an opposing analogy ("it's more like a muscle that strengthens under effort").

Context 4 / 8

Crisis management

A senior executive: "Handling this crisis is like flying a plane through a storm: you don't hit the brakes, you adjust course while holding your altitude." The analogy justifies a strategy of adjustment rather than a halt.

How to apply it

In a crisis, the analogy steers collective conduct by projecting an image of control (piloting) that reassures and frames decisions.

Strengths

Provides a clear mental model when complexity is paralysing; rallies people around an image.

Weaknesses

A poorly chosen analogy can downplay the seriousness or suggest a degree of control that one does not have.

Context 5 / 8

Political negotiation

A minister: "Reducing a country's debt is like an over-indebted household: you don't get out of it by spending more." The domestic analogy secures acceptance of austerity by transferring household common sense.

How to apply it

Choose an analogy familiar to the voter (the household budget) to make a complex, contested policy seem obvious.

Strengths

Makes an abstract policy intuitively acceptable; a classic weapon of economic rhetoric.

Weaknesses

The state-household analogy is contestable (a state is not a household), and a well-prepared opponent will dismantle it.

Context 6 / 8

Real-estate negotiation

An agent to the seller: "An overpriced property is like a fish on the stall: the longer it waits, the less it sells, and the more the buyer grows wary." The analogy justifies a realistic asking price.

How to apply it

Use a depreciation analogy to get the seller to accept that too high a price harms the sale, without wounding them with a direct judgement.

Strengths

Conveys the logic of the market through a telling image that defuses attachment to the price.

Weaknesses

The seller may find the analogy demeaning to their property and dig in.

Context 7 / 8

Cross-cultural negotiation

A negotiator explaining the partnership: "Our collaboration is more like a marriage than a one-off contract: it is built over time and on mutual trust." The analogy speaks to a culture that values long-term relationships.

How to apply it

Choose an analogy that resonates in the other party's culture (marriage, family, a garden one tends) to establish the expected relational framing.

Strengths

Creates a shared understanding of the kind of relationship sought, beyond the words of the contract.

Weaknesses

An analogy that lands well in one culture may be out of place or misunderstood in another.

Context 8 / 8

Family negotiation

During an inheritance division, an elder sibling: "Dividing the family home is like cutting a painting into pieces so everyone gets a share: each has a fragment, no one has the work." The analogy argues for a solution that preserves the property intact.

How to apply it

Use an analogy of lost unity to defend a distribution that does not destroy the shared value (keep the asset, compensate in cash).

Strengths

Makes tangible the idea that a strict split can destroy what has value for everyone.

Weaknesses

A co-heir can turn the image around ("it's not a painting, it's an asset that can be sold and shared").

Counter-techniques

Spot and neutralise this technique

Negotiation is also played on defence. Here is how to recognise this technique when it is used against you, and turn it around.

Detect

The signals that give it away

  • A false alternative ("it's A or B")
  • A sweeping generalisation
  • A loaded question

Neutralise

The counters that defuse it

  • Refuse the false dilemma: "there is a third way"
  • Ask for precise facts
  • Break the question down before answering

Turn around

Turn it into an advantage

Send the question back to its author to regain the initiative.

The trap to avoid

Answering on the terms imposed by the other side.

In brief

  • Difficulty: Intermediate
  • Estimated effectiveness: High
  • Time to implement: Short
  • Fields of application: Sales, Political debate, Mediation, Cross-cultural negotiation, Teaching
  • Synonyms: Argumentative analogy, Paradeigma, Argument from comparison
  • Tags: analogy, metaphor, transfer, Aristotle, Perelman

Strengths and Weaknesses

The argument from analogy makes the unknown familiar and secures acceptance of a conclusion by transferring it from a domain where it is self-evident. It is powerfully pedagogical and shifts the debate onto chosen ground. Its limit: it does not prove, it suggests; every analogy limps somewhere, and an attentive interlocutor can break the resemblance or counter with an opposing analogy that reverses the conclusion.

When to use this technique?

Use it to make intelligible an abstract stake, secure acceptance of a conclusion through transferred obviousness, or frame a relationship. Avoid using it as sufficient proof (it is not), and choose it with care: a fragile or culturally ill-suited analogy backfires at once.

How to recognise and counter this technique

Recognise it: the other party grounds their conclusion in a comparison ("it's like...") drawn from another domain. Neutralise it: point out the place where the analogy limps ("on this precise point, the two cases differ") to break the transfer. Turn it around: offer a more apt counter-analogy that leads to the opposite conclusion, shifting the frame in your favour.

Limits and ethics

The argument from analogy becomes fallacious when the resemblance invoked is superficial or bears on an irrelevant aspect (false analogy): inferring from like to like when the relation is not genuinely transposable. The risk is passing off an image as a demonstration. Ethical rule: the analogy must illuminate a real relation, not disguise an unfounded conclusion.

Variants and related techniques

It condenses into Metaphor and is akin to the Example (paradeigma). It combines with Directed reformulation and the Chiasmus. It stands opposed to direct proof, deductive demonstration and the statistical argument.

Going further

  • Aristotle, Rhetoric, 4th century BC.
  • Chaïm Perelman & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, 1958.
  • George Lakoff & Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 1980.

Aims of the technique

  • Make an abstract or novel position intuitively understandable by relating it to a case the interlocutor already accepts.
  • Transfer the legitimacy or agreement secured on a known case to the point under discussion, so as to reduce resistance.
  • Structure a line of reasoning of the type 'what holds here must hold there', useful for justifying a pricing, contractual or matter-of-principle precedent.
  • Lower the burden of proof by shifting the debate towards the relevance of the resemblances rather than towards direct demonstration.
  • Create common ground by starting from a shared example, which fosters cooperation rather than head-on confrontation.

Famous cases

Judicial · California v. Carney (US Supreme Court, 1985): The question was whether searching a parked motorhome required a warrant. The law then distinguished the home (warrant required) from the automobile (recognised exception). The argument turned on an analogy: does a motorhome resemble a house more, or a car? The Court identified the features justifying the automobile exception, ready mobility, a reduced expectation of privacy, dense regulation of road use, and held that they applied equally to the habitable vehicle, concluding by analogy that no warrant was required. A classic case showing that the argumentative battle is fought over the relevance of the resemblances chosen.

Commercial · Justifying a price by a reference case: A supplier facing a buyer who contests the price anchors the discussion on a comparable earlier project, one accepted and delivered successfully: same scope, same time constraints, same level of demand. He argues that, since this reference case was judged fair, the same pricing logic should apply here. The buyer can no longer attack the price as such; they are led to discuss the actual differences between the two projects, which shifts the negotiation onto factual, verifiable ground. A representative, unattributed scenario.

Common mistakes

  • Choosing an analogy source the interlocutor does not know or does not accept: the argument collapses because the transfer rests on a prior agreement that does not exist.
  • Surface analogy: relying on incidental resemblances unrelated to the point genuinely at stake (a non-'material' similarity), which makes the argument easy to refute.
  • Ignoring the disanalogies: failing to anticipate the relevant differences the other party will exploit to break the comparison.
  • Stretching the analogy too far: pushing it beyond what it can bear, to the point of caricature, which discredits the whole line of reasoning.
  • Using an emotionally charged or insulting analogy (a demeaning comparison): it puts the interlocutor on the defensive instead of creating the common ground sought.

Scientific foundations

  • Cass R. Sunstein (1993) On Analogical Reasoning Harvard Law Review, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 741-791
  • Douglas Walton (2013) Methods of Argumentation Cambridge University Press
  • Daniel Kahneman (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Quick exercise

Test yourself before answering

Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.

1 Quels signaux doivent vous alerter ?
  • A false alternative ("it's A or B")
  • A sweeping generalisation
  • A loaded question
2 Quelles parades appliquer ?
  • Refuse the false dilemma: "there is a third way"
  • Ask for precise facts
  • Break the question down before answering

Frequently asked questions

The questions we get most

What is the "The Argument by Analogy" technique?

The argument from analogy transfers a conclusion from a known case to the case under discussion, drawing on a similarity of structure ("negotiating this contract is like buying insurance: you pay for peace of mind"). In negotiation, it makes the unknown familiar, secures acceptance of a conclusion by transferring it from a domain where it is self-evident, and shifts the debate onto ground chosen by whoever sets out the analogy.

Is the "The Argument by Analogy" technique ethical?

It sits on the line: effective, but it can tip into manipulation if it exploits an information asymmetry. Use it with measure and without deliberate deceit.

How do you defend against "The Argument by Analogy"?

Answering on the terms imposed by the other side. The right reflex: refuse the false dilemma: "there is a third way".

What is the "The Argument by Analogy" technique based on?

NEGOCOACH does not assess the experimental validation of this technique in isolation. What we document is the grounding of its source school (Classical rhetoric): documented school. Full detail is in the "At a glance" section of this page.

Practise with AI

Three ready-to-use prompts

Copy, paste into your assistant, replace the [brackets]. Works with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Perplexity.

Prepare

Build your plan before the meeting

You are an expert negotiation coach. Help me prepare to use the "The Argument by Analogy" technique in the following situation: [describe your situation]. Give me: the conditions for success, a 3-step script, my counterpart's likely objections and how to answer them.

ChatGPT Claude Perplexity

Simulate

Rehearse against an AI counterpart

Play the role of my counterpart in a negotiation. I am going to test the "The Argument by Analogy" technique. React realistically and with resistance, do not give in too quickly, then at the end analyse my performance and suggest 3 concrete improvements.

ChatGPT Claude Perplexity

Debrief

Analyse a past negotiation

Here is how my negotiation went: [paste the exchanges]. Analyse whether the "The Argument by Analogy" technique was used well, what worked, the mistakes made, and spell out precisely what I could have done better.

ChatGPT Claude Perplexity

References

Bibliography & credible sources

Founding works of the 📜 Classical rhetoric school this technique belongs to.

  • Cover: You Can Negotiate Anything

    You Can Negotiate Anything

    Book

    H. Cohen · 1980

    The best-seller that democratised negotiation: everything is negotiable, provided you understand power, time and information. Accessible in tone and full of everyday examples.

  • Cover: Everything is Negotiable

    Everything is Negotiable

    Book

    G. Kennedy · 1982

    A practical guide to negotiating in daily life as in business, centred on conditional exchange and firmness on your interests. Kennedy hunts down the negotiator's "soft" reflexes.

Aristotle ("Rhetoric"), Quintilian; C. Perelman & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, "The New Rhetoric", 1958; A. Schopenhauer, "The Art of Being Right".

On video

See the technique in action

Videos to picture The Argument by Analogy and anchor it through examples.

Search for videos Examples & demonstrations

A verified video selection is being enriched; the search above already surfaces the best videos on the topic.

Technique map

Where this technique sits

Every technique sits within a network: what it draws on, what it combines with, where it applies, and how to defend against it.

Levers engaged

biases & emotions

Fields of application

Sales negotiation Procurement negotiation Labour negotiation Crisis management Political negotiation Real-estate negotiation Cross-cultural negotiation Family negotiation

Countered by

Spot its signals, neutralise it and turn it around with the defensive playbook on this page.

See the counter-techniques

Key takeaways

  • En une phrase

    The argument from analogy transfers a conclusion from a known case to the case under discussion, drawing on a similarity of structure ("negotiating this contract is like buying insurance: you pay for peace of mind"). In negotiation, it makes the unknown familiar, secures acceptance of a conclusion by transferring it from a domain where it is self-evident, and shifts the debate onto ground chosen by whoever sets out the analogy.

  • The right reflex

    Send the question back to its author to regain the initiative.

  • Never do this

    Answering on the terms imposed by the other side.

6.3/10 tactical potential Moderate vigilance Documented school

Master this technique in real situations?

Our programmes turn theory into a concrete advantage.

Explore our programmes
← Technique n°235 The Dialectical Reversal (retorsion) Technique n°237 → The Limited Hangout (partial admission)

Related techniques

The full library →
237 The Limited Hangout (partial admission) 235 The Dialectical Reversal (retorsion) 234 Loaded Reframing 238 The Conversational False Flag
Call Book a call