Julio is trying to get his friend megan to upgrade her flip phone to a smartphone. he tells her that not having a smartphone in this day and age would be like driving a horse and buggy in the 1930s when the rest of the world had upgraded to automobiles. do you think the parallels between driving a horse and buggy in the 1930s and using a flip phone in the 2010s are strong enough for the analogy to be persuasive, or do you think julio is committing the fallacy of weak analogy? explain your answer.

This is a weak analogy. Flip phones were created much later than a horse buggy. And even so, flip phones still perform the main purpose of a phone: calling.

As for that, the argument itself does sound a bit convincing at first glance. The parallels seem pretty even and accurate. But a flip phone will still work, no matter what time or era it is.

Answer Link