Refuting Incorrect Apology
The caution was given that reasoning from analogy must show the complete correspondence in all points possible of the known from which the reasoning proceeds to the conclusion about the unknown, which then is to be accepted as true. Unless that complete correspondence is established firmly the speaker is likely to have his carefully worked out analogy demolished before his eyes. Notice how such refutation is clearly demonstrated in the following.
So it does; but the sophistry here is plain enough, although it is not always detected. Great genius and force of character undoubtedly make their own career. But because Walter Scott was dull at school, is a parent to see with joy that his son is a dunce? Because Lord Chatham was of a towering conceit, must we infer that pompous vanity portends a comprehensive statesmanship that will fill the world with the splendor of its triumphs?
Because Sir Robert Walpole gambled and swore and boozed at Houghton, are we to suppose that gross sensuality and coarse contempt of human nature are the essential secrets of a power that defended liberty against tory intrigue and priestly politics? Was it because Benjamin Franklin was not college-bred that he drew the lightning from heaven and tore the scepter from the tyrant?
Was it because Abraham Lincoln had little schooling that his great heart beat true to God and man, lifting him to free a race and die for his country? Because men naturally great have done great service in the world without advantages, does it follow that lack of advantage is the secret of success?
George William Curtis: The Public Duty of Educated Men, 1877