Comparing SAT analogies to the ability to make a logical argument is like:

a) idiotic
b) fucktarditudinous
c) well, you get the idea...

This pissed me off. (What? A link to something that pissed somebody off in a blog? No!) I have long detested the analogies in the SATs. Good riddance. They're fucking useless. And to see them defended in the New York Times makes me want to strangle somebody. Or more people, since I probably just wanted to strangle someone on principle anyway. Fuck off.

I cannot even begin to tell you how useless the analogies are. I'm honestly having trouble figuring out where to begin. Ok, first of all, it's utterly retarded to believe that the ability to compare the relationship between two sets of words relates in any way, shape or form to the ability to make a logical argument and participate meaningfully in debate. The reason that comparing the estate tax to the holocaust is that _in context_ it's an outrageous assertion. That doesn't mean there aren't necessarily parallels between the two. They're just likely irrelevent and/or pale in comparison to the larger issues each deal with. The relationship between two concepts always depends upon the context in which you're discussing them. The words in the analogies section of the SAT were entirely without context, and therefore any comparison of them is meaningless. Meaningless! It doesn't tell you anything about the abilities of the test-taker to ask him or her to compare two words out of context. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. It's complete and utter horseshit. For any set of words on an analogy question, I guarantee you I can make an argument as to why any given answer is most appropriate given a certain context. You may find the argument uncompelling, but guess what? That's a subjective judgment, and subjective judgments are not supposed to be part of a standardized test. Or if they are, it's only meaningful to evaluate them with supporting evidence which you obviously cannot give in your answer.

The analogies tested exactly two things in conjunction: your vocabulary and your ability to divine how the test writer thought about those vocabulary words. That's it. There is a separate vocabulary section, and there is a reading comprehension section that will test your ability to comprehend analogies in context.

The fact that Cohen brings up the use of analogies in law is especially telling. The pervasiveness of analogies in law is part of the reason the legal system is so fucked up. Frug was exactly right: "All things are alike in some ways and different in other ways." What does that tell you? That whether an analogy is apt boils down to the skill with which one makes an argument that it is. There is no objective truth to analogy. It's a subjective judgment, and the fact that law degenerates into an analysis of analogies means it has degenerated into a reliance on linguistic cunning to determine objective justice. Frightening, no?