What Is Historical Analogy in G3 History? | Learning From Comparisons Without Predicting Repeats

CHAPTER 1 OF 18 · Define the connection

1. An analogy compares a relationship, not just a picture

Back to contents

Two cases can look alike while operating differently. Both may contain a crowd, a shortage or a powerful leader. Those features alone do not establish a useful analogy. Ask what relationship the comparison is meant to illuminate: scarcity and distribution, information and trust, resources and implementation, or another specific connection. The analytical value lies in the relationship rather than the visual resemblance.

Fictional teaching example: two towns experience queues outside shops. In one, a supply interruption reduces available food. In the other, a temporary discount attracts more customers. The queue is a shared visible feature, but its causes and meaning differ. An analogy about hardship would be weak unless further evidence establishes comparable conditions. The image cannot carry the explanation by itself.

A useful comparison might instead concern how both shopkeepers communicate waiting times and allocate limited service capacity. Even then, differences in necessity and choice matter. Waiting for essential food is not equivalent to waiting for a discounted luxury. Naming the shared mechanism does not make every dimension morally or historically interchangeable.

Begin with a sentence such as “The comparison concerns how uncertain information affected decisions.” This tells the reader what is being mapped and prevents the analogy from expanding without notice. Then identify the corresponding actors or institutions carefully. A council is not automatically equivalent to a national government simply because both issue instructions.

If you cannot state the relationship in ordinary language, the analogy may be premature. Return to the cases separately and identify what each source actually shows. Historical understanding often improves when a striking resemblance is replaced by a narrower but better-supported connection.

CHAPTER 2 OF 18 · Define the connection

2. Distinguish analogy from full comparison

Back to contents

A comparison examines similarities and differences between cases. An analogy often selects a particular relationship to illuminate one case through another. The distinction is practical, not a rigid boundary: an analogy should be tested through comparison. What matters is that the selected resemblance does not quietly become a claim that the cases are alike in every important respect.

Fictional teaching example: a town’s emergency supply system and a school’s meal distribution system might both depend on clear records and reliable delivery. An analogy can help identify a coordination problem. A full historical comparison would need to investigate their different aims, scale, authority and consequences. The narrower analogy does not establish equivalence between the institutions.

Students sometimes use “just like” to hide an unexplained leap. Replace it with “similar in this respect…” and complete the relationship. Then add a relevant difference. This makes the comparison more precise without requiring a lengthy digression. If the difference changes how the mechanism works, it belongs in the argument rather than in a token caveat.

Do not assume that mentioning one difference makes an analogy safe. A minor difference in location may matter less than a major difference in power, resources or available choices. The test is explanatory relevance. Which difference could change the inference you are drawing? Focus on those conditions rather than compiling an indiscriminate list.

An analogy is strongest when its job is limited and visible. It might clarify a constraint, suggest an alternative explanation or identify a question worth asking. It should not be asked to provide evidence about a case that has not been examined. The comparison guides enquiry; the sources still support the historical conclusion.

CHAPTER 3 OF 18 · Define the connection

3. Learn both cases before linking them

Back to contents

A familiar story can become a misleading shortcut if the second case is poorly understood. Students may know one event well and then force a new event into its structure. The remedy is to establish basic facts and context for each case independently before deciding what they share. Otherwise, the analogy may reproduce a remembered narrative rather than explain the evidence.

For each case, identify the actors, period, problem, available choices and documented outcome. Note which details are secure and which are contested. The two accounts do not need identical length, but neither should be invented from the other. If you cannot describe the new case without referring to the old one, you may not yet understand it sufficiently.

Fictional teaching example: one town closes a bridge after an engineering warning; another closes a market after a health inspection. Both involve public restrictions, but the legal powers, risks and alternatives may differ. Learn what each inspection established, who decided and how the public responded before drawing a lesson about authority or compliance.

Beware of importing a famous label too early. Once a case is called another version of a familiar failure, every new detail may be read as confirmation. This can make contradictory evidence harder to notice. Use provisional language and keep a separate note of features that do not fit the initial resemblance.

A useful exercise is to write two short independent summaries and then a third paragraph stating the proposed connection. Underline which facts support the connection. If the third paragraph depends on assumptions missing from either summary, identify the information needed. The analogy should grow from knowledge of both cases, not substitute for it.

CHAPTER 4 OF 18 · Test its relevance

4. Choose similarities that affect the mechanism

Back to contents

Not all similarities carry equal analytical weight. Shared dates, uniforms, slogans or geographic features may be interesting without explaining the outcome. A similarity matters when it affects the process under investigation. If the claim concerns implementation, comparable staffing and resources may matter more than similar rhetoric. If it concerns persuasion, audience and communication conditions may become central.

Fictional teaching example: two relief programmes use the same slogan. One has reliable local distribution networks; the other relies on a distant office. The shared slogan may be relevant to public presentation, but it cannot establish comparable delivery capacity. An analogy about operational success should examine resources, transport, authority and information rather than treat wording as the decisive common feature.

Ask a counterfactual question about the similarity: if this shared feature were different, would the proposed explanation change? If not, it may be incidental. This is a thinking test, not proof of causation. It helps identify which features deserve attention and which merely make the comparison sound attractive.

There can also be a meaningful similarity hidden beneath different appearances. Two systems may use different technologies while sharing a dependence on timely, accurate records. That relationship may support a useful analogy about information failure. Still, the differences in speed, reach and verification could alter the consequences. A mechanism-level resemblance needs testing, not celebration as a universal key.

In writing, connect each similarity to its job: “Both depended on local reports to identify shortages, making reporting delays relevant in each case.” This is more informative than “Both had shortages.” The first explains why the resemblance matters to the enquiry. The second simply places matching nouns beside each other.

CHAPTER 5 OF 18 · Test its relevance

5. Test differences that could change the conclusion

Back to contents

A disanalogy is a difference that limits a proposed analogy. The important differences are those that affect the relationship you are trying to transfer. Scale, institutions, technology, resources, social expectations and available choices may alter how a similar pressure produces an outcome. A comparison that ignores these conditions risks treating resemblance as destiny.

Fictional teaching example: two towns face water shortages. One can draw on a neighbouring reservoir under a standing agreement; the other has no comparable source. An analogy predicting the same response from the shared shortage would miss a decisive difference in options. The pressure is similar, but the available solutions and likely consequences differ.

Power matters too. An instruction from a voluntary association operates differently from a legally enforceable government order. Participation, refusal and accountability may have different meanings. Calling both “leadership decisions” can be useful at a broad level, but it does not establish equivalent authority or responsibility. Identify which institutional difference affects the claim.

Do not add differences merely to appear balanced. Explain their consequence. “The towns were different sizes” becomes analytically useful when size changes delivery distance, coordination or resource demand. A list of differences without a reasoning link is no better than a list of similarities without one. Both require explanation.

A strong paragraph might conclude that the analogy helps identify a common supply problem but cannot predict the response because one case had an alternative source. This is not a failed comparison. You have learned what transfers and what does not. A limited analogy can be a successful analytical tool when its boundary is clearly stated.

CHAPTER 6 OF 18 · Test its relevance

6. Similar outcomes do not prove identical causes

Back to contents

An analogy often begins with a shared outcome: a protest, reform, collapse or recovery. Yet the same outcome can arise through different combinations of conditions. Inferring identical causes from similar results reverses the task of explanation. You need evidence about the causal process in each case rather than treating the outcome as a signature that identifies its origin.

Fictional teaching example: two markets lose visitors. One faces a transport closure; the other faces higher prices and a competing venue. Both have declining attendance, but a lesson about repairing transport will not necessarily address the second problem. The shared result identifies an enquiry, not a complete diagnosis.

Look for the sequence connecting conditions to action and outcome. Which actors changed behaviour? What incentives, constraints or information shaped the change? Did the proposed cause precede the effect? Are alternative explanations documented? These questions make an analogy causal rather than merely descriptive.

The reverse is also important: similar pressures can produce different outcomes. Two towns facing high rents may respond with petitions, migration, negotiation or no recorded collective action. Organisation, political opportunity and alternative options can mediate the response. A useful analogy should help investigate these conditions rather than erase them.

A careful conclusion distinguishes outcome resemblance from explanatory support. “Both experienced declining use, but the available evidence identifies different immediate mechanisms” is a meaningful finding. It may suggest that the broad category requires several explanations. Historical analogy becomes misleading when it promises one reusable story where the record shows different processes.

CHAPTER 7 OF 18 · Test its relevance

7. Analogy can generate a hypothesis, not prove it

Back to contents

A hypothesis is an explanation proposed for testing. An analogy can suggest one: if communication delays mattered in a previous case, perhaps they mattered here. That is a useful starting question. It is not proof that the same explanation applies. The next step is to look for evidence in the target case that supports or challenges the proposed mechanism.

Fictional teaching example: a student knows of an invented town where inaccurate stock reports delayed relief. They encounter another relief programme with late deliveries and propose a similar reporting problem. To test it, they would need correspondence, dates, instructions or records showing how information moved. Late delivery alone cannot establish the reporting failure.

A good hypothesis identifies what evidence would be expected if it were correct. Perhaps shortages were reported late, decisions followed outdated figures or local officials repeatedly requested clarification. It also identifies what could weaken the explanation, such as timely reports combined with transport breakdowns. This keeps the analogy open to rejection.

Do not protect a hypothesis by inventing hidden facts whenever evidence disagrees. If records show accurate information reached decision-makers promptly, the initial analogy may be less useful. Revise the explanation rather than assuming secret delays. Historical reasoning improves when a comparison can fail a test.

In an answer, distinguish the analogy’s role from the conclusion’s support. You might use the comparison in planning but omit it from the final paragraph if direct evidence now explains the case more clearly. An analogy does not need to appear in the finished prose to have helped the enquiry. Its value can lie in generating the right question.

CHAPTER 8 OF 18 · Check inference and rhetoric

8. The past is not a prediction machine

Back to contents

Historical analogy can identify risks, questions or possible mechanisms. It cannot guarantee that a later case will follow the same path. Conditions change, people learn, institutions adapt and choices remain consequential. A resemblance may justify closer attention without establishing a repeated outcome. Students should distinguish a warning informed by history from a prediction claimed as inevitable.

Fictional teaching example: a town once suffered serious flooding after maintenance was neglected. A second town has neglected drainage, so the earlier case may highlight a relevant vulnerability. It does not establish the same flood date, severity or consequences. Rainfall, geography, infrastructure and emergency capacity may differ. The analogy suggests what to inspect, not what must happen.

This distinction also prevents retrospective certainty. Knowing one case’s outcome can make its path appear straightforward. Applying that story to a new case may hide alternatives that were present in the original and remain present now. A good historical account preserves the uncertainty faced by actors at the time rather than turning their experience into an inevitable script.

Use conditional language with content: “If comparable maintenance weaknesses remain unaddressed, the earlier case suggests a risk worth investigating.” The conditions tell the reader what would make the analogy relevant. Avoid attaching a dramatic conclusion to vague similarity, then adding “perhaps” as a superficial sign of caution.

When a question concerns the past, stay with the historical enquiry. A long prediction about the future may distract from explaining the events and sources set. Connections can enrich understanding, but they should not displace the task. The strongest lesson from an analogy may be a better question about evidence rather than a confident forecast.

CHAPTER 9 OF 18 · Check inference and rhetoric

9. Historical actors also used analogies

Back to contents

People in the past compared their circumstances with earlier events, familiar stories or other societies. Those comparisons can become evidence of how they understood a problem and justified a choice. A historian may need to analyse the actor’s analogy without adopting it. The question is both whether the comparison was persuasive to them and whether it was well founded.

Fictional teaching example: a mayor describes a proposed relief programme as a repeat of an earlier failure. That statement may reveal the mayor’s concerns, political strategy or understanding of the precedent. It does not by itself establish that the programmes shared the same weaknesses. Compare the relevant features and consider the audience for the warning.

Ask what the analogy selected and omitted. Did it focus on cost while ignoring a changed delivery system? Did it invoke a memorable outcome while overlooking different resources? Did it encourage caution, urgency or resistance? The comparison may perform a rhetorical job independent of its analytical accuracy. Explain that job through wording and context.

A source can sincerely use a poor analogy. It can also strategically use a comparison that contains some genuine similarities. Avoid reducing the evaluation to sincerity versus deception. The relevant claims should be tested individually, and the source’s purpose should be connected to evidence rather than assumed from disagreement.

A useful sentence might say that the mayor invoked an earlier failure to discourage support, while differences in funding and oversight limit the comparison’s explanatory value. This separates message, purpose and historical assessment. It also shows why studying an analogy can be useful even when the historian ultimately judges it misleading.

CHAPTER 10 OF 18 · Check inference and rhetoric

10. Emotional force can make a comparison feel stronger than it is

Back to contents

A familiar catastrophe, heroic success or moral symbol can give an analogy immediate emotional power. That power may help an audience understand stakes, but it does not establish causal similarity. Students should pause when a comparison seems to settle the argument before the evidence has been examined. Ask which relationship is actually shared and which important conditions differ.

Fictional teaching example: a speaker calls a small administrative delay “another disaster” by invoking a remembered town crisis. The phrase may express frustration or seek urgency, but the scale and mechanism need testing. The historical analyst should not infer equivalent danger merely because the comparison uses a powerful label.

Avoid treating emotional resonance as evidence of dishonesty. People may genuinely understand new situations through memorable earlier experiences. The historian’s task is to reconstruct that reasoning and evaluate its fit. A personal or collective memory can shape behaviour even when the analogy is imperfect. Its influence and its accuracy are separate questions.

Ethical seriousness also requires proportion. Comparing everyday inconvenience casually with persecution or mass suffering can flatten important differences and obscure the experiences of those harmed. Use precise descriptions and avoid dramatic equivalence where the evidence supports only a limited relationship. An analogy should clarify, not exploit, the gravity of another event.

For revision, remove the famous label and state the mechanism directly. Does the argument still make sense? If not, the analogy may have been relying on emotion rather than explanation. If it does, restore the comparison only if it helps the reader and its limits remain clear. Often the direct mechanism is the stronger final wording.

CHAPTER 11 OF 18 · Apply the comparison

11. Present-day concepts need translation into past contexts

Back to contents

Modern terms can help organise an enquiry, but their meanings may not match those used by historical actors. A category such as citizenship, public opinion or national identity can operate differently across settings. Historical analogy should not assume that a familiar word names an identical institution or experience in every period.

Fictional teaching example: two towns both have elected councils, but one uses a broad franchise while the other restricts voting to a small group. Calling both democratic without explaining the difference could mislead an analogy about representation. The relevant question is who could participate, how decisions were made and what accountability existed.

Do not solve this by forbidding all modern analytical language. Historians need concepts to compare and explain. Use the concept with a clear definition and identify where the historical setting differs. A carefully bounded term can illuminate a relationship; an unexamined label can conceal it.

The same care applies to technology. A printed notice, radio address and online message may all communicate policy, but speed, reach, feedback and audience selection differ. An analogy about persuasion or information should examine those conditions rather than treating every communication channel as functionally identical.

A useful practice is to translate the broad label into concrete features. Instead of relying on “public opinion,” ask whose views were recorded, how they were expressed and what influence they had. Instead of “accountability,” ask which procedures could challenge a decision. Concrete features make an analogy easier to test across time.

CHAPTER 12 OF 18 · Apply the comparison

12. A classroom analogy should keep its own limits visible

Back to contents

Teachers and students often use everyday comparisons to introduce difficult concepts. A household budget may help explain resource constraints; a group project may illustrate coordination. These can be useful entry points, but they are not equivalent historical cases. The institution’s scale, authority, responsibilities and consequences may differ substantially.

Fictional teaching example: comparing a town council with a school club might clarify that both must allocate limited funds. It does not establish that their legal obligations, tax powers or duties to residents are the same. The analogy is useful for one relationship and misleading if extended to every decision. State where it stops.

Students should not be required to simulate suffering to understand a historical experience. A brief inconvenience in a classroom does not reproduce displacement, coercion or deprivation. Such comparisons can create false confidence about another person’s experience. Use evidence and sensitive discussion rather than claiming that an exercise has made the experience fully understandable.

A good learning analogy invites a follow-up question: “What does this comparison leave out?” That question develops judgement rather than spoiling the explanation. It shows the learner which part of the concept has been introduced and which part still requires historical knowledge. The simplification becomes a bridge, not a substitute for the topic.

When writing an assessed answer, prefer the historical mechanism and evidence unless the task invites analogy. An everyday comparison that helped you learn may not belong in the final response. Understanding the role of the analogy includes knowing when to set it aside and explain the actual case directly.

CHAPTER 13 OF 18 · Apply the comparison

13. A complete fictional analogy workshop

Back to contents

Consider two invented cases. River Town delays repairing a bridge because reports of damage reach the council late. Hill Town delays repairing a road despite prompt reports because funding is tied up in another project. Both experience transport disruption and public criticism. A student proposes that the second case is “just another example of leaders ignoring warnings.”

Begin by separating the cases. River Town’s documented problem concerns information arriving late. Hill Town’s concerns the allocation of resources after information arrived. The shared outcome is delay, but the immediate mechanisms differ. The proposed analogy may obscure the distinction by turning both into an identical character judgement about leaders.

Now identify a narrower useful relationship. Both cases involve a gap between recognising a maintenance need and completing repair. This can generate questions about reporting, decision authority, funding and implementation. It does not establish that all four problems existed in both towns. The analogy becomes useful when it creates a structured enquiry rather than an automatic diagnosis.

Test the differences. River Town might improve reporting channels, while Hill Town might need to reconsider budget priorities or funding flexibility. A remedy transferred without diagnosis could miss the actual constraint. The lesson is not that the towns are incomparable. It is that the relevant point of comparison must be specified before a conclusion or solution is borrowed.

Write a paragraph explaining one shared feature, one mechanism-changing difference and the resulting limit. A strong conclusion might say that the cases illuminate maintenance delays but do not support the same explanation of responsibility. Every detail in this workshop is fictional. In real historical study, each claimed condition must be supported by sources rather than supplied by the convenience of the analogy.

CHAPTER 14 OF 18 · Apply the comparison

14. Compare remedies as carefully as causes

Back to contents

An analogy can tempt a writer to borrow a solution because it worked elsewhere. Yet remedies depend on the problem’s mechanism and the receiving context. A policy that addresses information delay may not address resource shortage. A reform requiring trained staff may not transfer to a setting without that capacity. Historical learning should examine conditions of effectiveness rather than copy outcomes.

Fictional teaching example: one town improves clinic use by extending evening hours. Another has low use because residents cannot afford transport. The first remedy may help a scheduling problem but leave the second town’s main barrier intact. Shared low attendance does not establish a shared treatment. Diagnose the relevant constraint before drawing a lesson.

Ask what enabled the original remedy. Was funding available? Did institutions have authority? Were participants willing and able to use the service? Did another development contribute to the outcome? A successful result may depend on a combination that the simplified analogy leaves out. The lesson must preserve those conditions if it is to be meaningful.

Do not conclude that context makes all learning impossible. Some mechanisms can travel across settings when the relevant conditions are understood. The responsible claim is conditional: a remedy may help where a comparable barrier and adequate capacity exist. Explain those conditions rather than promising universal success or retreating into the claim that every case is completely unique.

For a History student, this is mainly a discipline of explanation. Even when a task does not ask for recommendations, evaluating whether a lesson transfers can reveal how well the original cause has been understood. If the borrowed solution has no clear connection to the proposed mechanism, revisit the analogy before treating it as useful knowledge.

CHAPTER 15 OF 18 · Keep boundaries visible

15. Write the analogy with an explicit boundary

Back to contents

A clear analogy paragraph has a defined job. State the relationship being compared, provide evidence from both cases and explain a relevant difference. Then say what the comparison supports and what it does not. These are functions rather than compulsory sentence slots. A short analogy may fit within a paragraph; a complex comparison may require more space.

Avoid opening with “history repeats itself” and expecting the examples to prove it. That phrase makes a much larger claim than most comparisons can sustain. A more precise opening might identify a recurring tension between urgent demand and limited administrative capacity. The reader now knows which relationship is being investigated and can assess the evidence accordingly.

Fictional teaching repair: replace “Both leaders failed because they were the same kind of person” with “Both administrations faced delayed implementation, but the records identify different constraints: late information in one case and restricted funding in the other.” The repair removes unsupported psychology and preserves an analytically useful contrast.

Use the limiting sentence to explain consequence, not merely announce difference. “The settings were different” is too vague. “The second council already had accurate reports, so improving communication alone would not address its funding constraint” shows why the disanalogy matters. A boundary is useful when it changes the inference, recommendation or level of confidence.

Read the paragraph without the analogy label. Does it contain a defensible historical explanation? If not, the comparison may be doing rhetorical work without evidential support. Strengthen the account of each case before relying on their resemblance. A good analogy helps the reader understand an argument that remains answerable to sources.

CHAPTER 16 OF 18 · Keep boundaries visible

16. A practical revision routine and an honest conclusion

Back to contents

Choose one comparison from your notes or a practice answer. Write its shared relationship in one sentence. Then identify the evidence for that relationship in each case. If you have only one side documented, mark the missing knowledge before extending the claim. This small exercise prevents familiarity with one event from masquerading as understanding of two.

Next, name the most important difference and explain how it affects the inference. Do not choose a minor difference merely because it is easy to mention. Ask whether the difference changes causation, scale, responsibility, available choices or outcomes. If it does, the analogy’s scope should reflect that change.

Then state the proposed lesson as a question or conditional claim. “Did reporting delays also matter here?” is a useful hypothesis. “The same failure must happen again” is a prediction requiring much stronger support. This revision often turns an overconfident comparison into a productive enquiry without discarding the insight that first prompted it.

Parents can ask, “Similar in what way?” and “Which difference could change the result?” These questions encourage precision without requiring a complete knowledge of both historical cases. If the student cannot answer, identify the information needed and return to course materials. The comparison becomes a reason to learn more rather than a shortcut around learning.

Historical analogy is useful when it sharpens attention. It can expose a mechanism, suggest an alternative or reveal why context matters. It becomes misleading when resemblance replaces evidence or a remembered outcome becomes a promised repeat. Learn both cases, compare the relevant relationship and keep the boundary visible. That is how the past informs judgement without becoming a script for every new situation.

CHAPTER 17 OF 18 · Keep boundaries visible

17. Match stages before matching stories

Back to contents

Two cases may appear parallel because their summaries omit the stages between beginning and outcome. A policy announcement, implementation dispute and eventual reform are different moments. Comparing an early promise in one case with a mature outcome in another can produce a false lesson about success or failure. Place the cases on separate timelines before aligning them.

Fictional teaching example: one town’s new school system is described during its difficult first year, while another is described after ten years of training and investment. Both sources may be accurate, but they concern different stages. An analogy claiming that one model naturally fails and the other naturally succeeds would need to examine development, not merely compare the selected snapshots.

Look for equivalent turning points rather than identical calendar intervals. The first effective funding allocation, the start of implementation or the emergence of organised opposition may offer useful reference points. Even then, explain why those stages are comparable. A year can contain very different amounts of institutional change in different settings.

The timeline check can also reveal a useful difference. One system may recover after early problems while another remains unstable because a particular constraint persists. The analogy then becomes a question about adaptation rather than a claim of identical decline. Historical learning often comes from understanding why paths diverged after a shared initial pressure.

For practice, draw three points for each case: initial condition, relevant decision and documented outcome. Add one intervening development that the summary had hidden. Then revise the analogy. If the comparison becomes less dramatic but more precise, it has improved. A good historical argument does not need to compress time until different processes look identical.

CHAPTER 18 OF 18 · Keep boundaries visible

18. Keep evidence for each side independent

Back to contents

An analogy can become circular when knowledge about the familiar case is used to fill gaps in the unfamiliar one, and the invented resemblance is then treated as confirmation. Prevent this by keeping evidence notes for each case separate. A feature belongs in the comparison only when it is supported for the case in which you claim it occurred.

Fictional teaching example: Town A’s records show that officials concealed repair costs. Town B has a delayed repair and missing correspondence. The analogy does not establish concealment in Town B. Missing letters may limit investigation, but they do not inherit Town A’s explanation. The second claim needs evidence about its own records, decisions and preservation.

Source types can also differ. A private diary in one case and a public speech in another may provide different access to motives or presentation. Similar wording does not automatically carry the same meaning across those forms. Consider audience, purpose and context for each source before using them as matching pieces.

A useful evidence sheet has two columns and a third column for the proposed relationship. Leave a cell blank when the information is unknown. Do not repair the visual symmetry by supplying a plausible detail. An uneven comparison may identify the exact source needed for further study, which is a valuable result in its own right.

Finally, ask whether removing the familiar case would change your factual account of the unfamiliar one. It may change your questions, but it should not remove facts that were supported only through resemblance. This check keeps analogy in its proper role: a guide to investigation and interpretation, not an alternative source of evidence about events that have not been established.

The next useful step is to explain one comparison aloud without saying “the same.” Name the shared relationship, the evidence on each side and the limit. If a listener can repeat those three points accurately, the analogy is probably helping communication. If the listener hears only a familiar label, return to the mechanism and make the connection more specific.