#10 - 10 Sales Tricks to Avoid - Weak Analogies and Appeals to Ignorance arguments

Weak Analogies and Appeals to Ignorance arguments:

Using analogies in a sales presentation can aid our understanding. Yet analogies often contribute less to the argument than we might suppose. The use of an analogy might even be a ploy intended only to appeal to our willingness to acceptance the analogy, not the thing it was used to explain. Yet often analogies rely on assumptions that are wholly unreliable. There are also arguments presented to us that instead of providing a plausible set of reasons why the claim ought to be believed, the salesperson relies instead on an absence of evidence to make the case for them. While such arguments are inherently flawed they can often appear plausible when packaged in the right way.

Weak analogy:

Analogies are often used non-argumentatively in the sales process, for example, as similes or metaphors to explain something unfamiliar by comparing it to something we are likely to be more familiar with. For example, a unit trust fund may be compared to a cake: many ingredients of the cake are spread evenly throughout it. When you take a slice of cake you have some of all the ingredients not all of one. Therefore, you are never exposed to one particular ingredient. In cases such as this the analogy is not being used to establish a conclusion. However, some analogies are argumentative if they are offered to support a conclusion the salesperson wants us to accept.

There is nothing essentially dishonest with using analogies in this way, and the ability to use them reflects the richness of our language. However, the mere fact that an argument is offered in the form of an analogy often seems enough to invite immediate and irrational acceptance. This can be dishonest if the salesperson knowingly uses weak analogies.

Arguments from analogy are persuasive because they compare two situations which appear plausible similar. But while the mere utterance of an analogy tends to produce conviction many analogies do not hold up under scrutiny. As a consequence all the salesperson is doing when they use a weak analogous argument is to take an unconvincing argument and repackage it in a more persuasive form. This is dishonest for the following reason.

When a salesperson uses a weak analogy they usually argue on the basis of a proposition that if one thing is similar to another in one respect, then it is similar in a further respect. This is a mistaken inference. It does not follow that if something is similar to another thing in one respect, it is similar in all respects. A Cake is not a unit trust fund, no matter how you slice it.

There is no limit to the form analogous arguments can take; anything can be compared with anything. Life might be compared to a box of chocolates, it certainly involves a box at some point, but so far as I am aware we don’t have praline centres. However, the following example is probably more useful to illustrate the point at hand:

You wouldn’t dream of not insuring your car, so why not insure your life.

This analogy claims that car insurance is like life insurance in that both offer protection. While this is true the salesperson then tries to make the claim that because both are similar, they should be treated the same in all respects.

The argument is unsound because it is obviously false to assume that a similarity in one respect implies a similarity in all respects. While it is true of course that life assurance and car insurance share some similarities, those similarities are not sufficient for the analogy to hold. In this example the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities. Life assurance has a different purpose, and you can’t get arrested for not taking out a life insurance policy. Indeed, you can protect your family in any number of ways other than by buying life insurance, but you cannot protect your car without car insurance.

For an argument by analogy to be effective in giving us a reason to accept its conclusion the salesperson needs first to argue that the two things compared are sufficiently similar in the relevant respect. In other words, they must compare like with like. For example the analogy with car insurance might hold if the compared with public liability insurance.

It would of course be wrong to suppose that every analogy we hear is readily accepted. We can, and do, counter arguments based on weak analogies in a number of ways. The most likely response is for us to object that the two situations are not sufficiently similar.

Analogies might be useful for getting a point across. But for our part we must ensure that what we are being given to compare is sufficiently alike in all or at least most respects. If not we must reject the analogy. In doing so we avoid falling into the trap of accepting a weak argument repackaged in a more persuasive form.

Appeals to ignorance:

This fallacy is not strictly what its title might at first suggest. Rather it is about concluding either that because a claim has not been proven it must be false, or because it has not been disproven it must be true.

Whichever version of the fallacy is used it relies on the false assumption that either the absence of proof means it must be false, or the absence of disproof means it must be true.

Despite not offering any other reasons to support a claim, other than the fact that the claim hasn’t been proved or disproved, such arguments carry persuasive force.

There is no evidence this product is dangerous to human health.

We have no evidence to suggest this new product will not perform better than the last.

Both arguments are as bad as each other. The first relies on the absence of a proof, and the second the absence of a disproof.

Given the fallacious nature of such arguments they have no place in a discussion intended to help us come to an informed decisions. Importantly we need to be aware that when presented with this type of argument. The mere fact that a proposition hasn’t been proved or disproved is, on its own, no reason to think it false or true.

Of course the very mention of the word ‘proof’ suggests certainty. But there are very few things of which we can be absolutely certain. Indeed many of our decisions are not based on certainties at all. There is no certainty Tower Bridge will not collapse, but tens of thousands of commuters still cross it daily.

The important thing to remember with arguments is to make sure we are being given reasons why we should believe them, not an absence of reasons. This applies to all the varieties of arguments highlighted throughout this guide.

So that brings us to the end – thanks for reading guys. I hope you found these blogs useful.
Steve