Previous technology X was used to win market Y because of attribute Z. We have a new technology X2 that will enable us to win market Y2 because we too have attribute Z
The problem with analogies like this is that they obscure the true leap of faith. That is their goal: to make the business seem less risky. They are used to persuade investors, employees, or perhaps to sign on.
-- The Lean Startup
Argument from analogyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property. The structure or form may be generalized like so:
- P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
- P has been observed to have further property x.
- Therefore, Q probably has property x also.
Of course, the argument doesn't assert that the two things are identical, only that they are similar. The argument may provide us with good evidence for the conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow as a matter of logical necessity. Determining the strength of the argument requires that we take into consideration more than just the form: the content must also come under scrutiny.
Personally, I feel annoyed, cheated, and misled when people trying to distort the fact and reality by presenting analogies. It feels like a hard sell, trying to use analogy to conceal the assumptions.