Assess appeals and analogies
Judge whether a persuasive appeal is relevant and proportionate and whether an analogy preserves decisive similarities.
Section 26-7.2 · 2026–2027 · 7.2 · Assess weak support and rhetorical devices
Original StudyForA scenarios and formative model answers; no Cambridge marks, predicted grades or certified mastery. Alternative reasoned answers may be valid. Full-length unseen papers, a wider mixed-problem bank and calibrated specialist teacher marking remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read an English passage closely
- Distinguish a statement from its supporting reason
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Before evaluating support, what should you identify?
What you will learn
- Evaluate rhetorical appeals in context
- Assess how an analogy strengthens or weakens support
An appeal is not automatically a flaw
An appeal to relevant expertise can support a technical judgement when the expert’s field, evidence and independence fit. Popularity can bear on predicted use but cannot by itself establish truth. Tradition and history can supply experience, while novelty or nature alone do not prove superiority. Justice and moral principles need a relevant connection to the decision.
Emotion can draw attention to a real harm, but an intense story cannot establish its frequency or comparative importance by itself. Appeals to the speaker’s character or values must be assessed for relevance and proportionality. Explain their contribution instead of assuming all persuasion is irrational.
Compare the features doing the argumentative work
An analogy transfers a judgement between cases. It is stronger when the decisive features match and weaker when important differences undermine the transfer. Comparing a library trial to a shop trial may illuminate testing demand, but revenue and public-access goals differ, limiting an inference about profitability.
An amusing comparison may help communication without providing logical support. State which similarity matters, which difference matters and what narrower conclusion the analogy can legitimately support.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Can a relevant, proportionate appeal strengthen an argument?
Worked example
‘A respected bridge engineer recommends this bridge repair, so we should take the safety concern seriously.’ Assess the appeal.
Show the worked solution
- Bridge safety is within the expert’s relevant field.
- Ask for the inspection basis and conflicts of interest.
- Respect the relevance without treating authority as infallible.
Answer The relevant expertise can strengthen the safety concern if based on a competent inspection. It does not eliminate the need to examine the evidence, independence or proposed remedy.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Explain why a bridge engineer’s view can be relevant to bridge safety but not decisive alone.
Give me a hint
Distinguish expertise from infallibility.
Compare my reasoning
- The expertise matches the technical question.
- Inspection quality and evidence still matter.
- Potential interests should be checked.
Relevant engineering expertise supports competence on bridge safety, but the strength still depends on the inspection evidence, reasoning and independence. A title alone is not a complete justification.
Look for these in your work
- Matches expertise to issue
- Checks the basis
- Limits authority
Independent: ‘The tool is new and natural, therefore it is safer.’ Assess the two appeals.
Give me a hint
Neither label measures safety.
Compare my reasoning
- Novelty is a time-related property.
- Natural origin does not guarantee harmlessness.
- Comparative safety data are needed.
The appeals to novelty and nature do not establish safety without a relevant mechanism and evidence. New or natural products can still cause harm, so the conclusion needs comparative risk data rather than favourable labels.
Look for these in your work
- Identifies both appeals
- Explains relevance limits
- Requests appropriate support
Application: ‘A café tested evening opening successfully, so a library will make a profit by opening late.’ Assess the analogy.
Give me a hint
Compare the purpose and revenue mechanism.
Compare my reasoning
- Both can test evening demand.
- A café sells goods, while library access may generate no sales.
- The demand-testing analogy does not establish profit.
The analogy can support testing evening demand, but not the profit conclusion without a comparable revenue model. A library’s public-access purpose and funding differ from a café’s sales, so the transfer exceeds the relevant similarity.
Look for these in your work
- Recognises a useful similarity
- Identifies a decisive difference
- Limits the conclusion
Common mistakes
- Treating all appeals as fallacies
- Using an expert outside the relevant field
- Ignoring a decisive difference in an analogy
What can you explain now?
Can a relevant, proportionate appeal strengthen an argument?
Compare with the explanation
Yes, its relevance and evidential basis must be assessed
Persuasive devices can contribute support when they fit the issue.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Can a relevant, proportionate appeal strengthen an argument?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.