Question 1

Analogy — Identify the matching relation: Sin : Crime

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Sin : Crime” contrasts two frameworks for judging acts: sin pertains to moral/religious transgression; crime pertains to legal transgression. The relation is ethical/moral domain vs legal domain addressing human conduct. We need an option echoing this domain contrast. Given Data / Assumptions: Sin → moral wrong. Crime → legal offense. Concept / Approach: Find a pair that stands in the same conceptual mapping of normative systems governing behavior: ethics/morality vs law/legality. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Man : Animal → taxonomy comparison; not normative domains.(b) Home : Court → locations/institutions; not parallel to sin/crime.(c) Morality : Legality → exactly mirrors moral vs legal standards.(d) Jury : Priest → roles within legal/religious systems; not abstract domains themselves. Verification / Alternative check: The pair in (c) directly abstracts “sin→morality” and “crime→legality.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Biological classes; (b) places; (d) agents, not normative frameworks. Common Pitfalls: Picking (d) because priest and jury “belong” to religion/law, but the stem contrasts concepts not roles. Final Answer: Morality : Legality

Question 2

Analogy — Identify the closest part–whole (extracted component) relation: Milk : Cream

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In this analogy, “Milk : Cream” expresses a whole-to-part relation in which the second item is an extractable constituent of the first. Cream is obtained from milk by separation (e.g., skimming), so the semantic link is whole → natural component rather than container–content, material–product, or property association. Given Data / Assumptions: Cream exists within milk and can be separated from it. We seek a pair where the second member is a constituent found naturally in the first. Reject pairs that merely show location, property, or material-to-artifact conversion. Concept / Approach: Classify each option by relation type: container–occupant, material–product, property–bearer, or whole–component. Select the option that mirrors “milk contains cream.” Step-by-Step Solution: (a) College : Students → institution–members (occupants), not a separable constituent like cream.(b) Sugar : Sweet → property relation (sweetness is a taste property), not a component relation.(c) Clay : Pottery → material→manufactured product; reverse of extractive part–whole.(d) Fruit : Glucose → fruits naturally contain glucose/sugars; this mirrors milk containing cream. Verification / Alternative check: Both pairs can be framed as “substance includes a constituent that can be measured/extracted”: milk→cream, fruit→glucose. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Not a compositional constituent; (b) involves a sensory property; (c) is fabrication from raw material, not extraction. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “material→product” (clay→pottery) with “whole→component” (milk→cream). The direction and mechanism are different. Final Answer: Fruit : Glucose

Question 3

Analogy — Choose the materials-to-constructed-object relation: Straws : Nest

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Straws : Nest” conveys a material → constructed object relationship. Birds use straws/twigs as building material to construct a nest. We must find a pair where the first item is the primary material from which the second item is made. Given Data / Assumptions: Nest is built using straws or similar fibrous materials. Look for a clear “inputs form output” construction link. Concept / Approach: Identify which option presents “raw/input material → finished/constructed product,” avoiding pairs that express location, membership, or process flow rather than fabrication. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Water : Stream → stream contains water; that is a flow/formation relation, not fabrication.(b) Animals : Zoo → occupants vs place (location), not material→product.(c) Threads : Cloth → threads are woven into cloth; perfect material→constructed object mapping.(d) Wood : paper → wood is a raw material for paper, but capitalization/spelling aside, industrial pulping is less direct. Still, (c) is the clearest straightforward fabrication analogue. Verification / Alternative check: Both “straws→nest” and “threads→cloth” are textbook examples in analogy questions illustrating material-to-fabricated object via assembly/weaving. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Hydrological relation; (b) inhabitants vs enclosure; (d) while true in industry, the direct everyday construction parallel is better captured by (c). Common Pitfalls: Choosing location or containment relations that feel associated but lack the build/construct mechanism. Final Answer: Threads : Cloth

Question 4

Analogy — Match the “attitude vs influence needed” relation: Loathe : Coercion

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair “Loathe : Coercion” suggests that when someone loathes (strongly dislikes) doing something, external pressure such as coercion may be applied to make them comply. The underlying relation is negative disposition → counteracting influence required. We need a second pair that mirrors “hesitation/dislike met with an influence designed to overcome it.” Given Data / Assumptions: Loathing implies strong unwillingness. Coercion is a forceful method to overcome refusal. Concept / Approach: Find a pair where the first word expresses unwillingness/hesitation and the second names a (non-identical) social influence to counter it. Prefer conceptual alignment over emotional valence alone. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Detest : Caressing → caressing is affectionate; mismatch with overcoming unwillingness in a goal-directed sense.(b) Irritate : Caressing → again emotional mismatch.(c) Irate : Antagonism → both negative attitudes; not “influence to overcome.”(d) Reluctant : Persuasion → reluctance is mild unwillingness; persuasion is the social influence applied to overcome it. This mirrors the stem (with “coercion” being a harsher influence than “persuasion”). Verification / Alternative check: Both pairs encode “undesire to act” vs “pressure/influence to act,” differing mainly in intensity (coercion stronger than persuasion) but preserving the structural relation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a), (b) mismatch the social-influence idea; (c) presents two attitudes, not attitude vs influence. Common Pitfalls: Assuming both terms must be strictly antonyms; here they form a problem–remedy relation. Final Answer: Reluctant : Persuasion

Question 5

Analogy — Pick the “official who presides over” relation: Umpire : Game

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem shows a role-to-context relation: an umpire is an official who presides over and adjudicates a game. We must select a pair where the first item is the designated official overseeing the event named by the second item. Given Data / Assumptions: Umpires manage rules and decisions in sports. We want an oversight/adjudication role tied to a formal proceeding. Concept / Approach: Classify options by whether they represent “official → event supervised.” Reject creator→product, participant→occasion, or talent→phenomenon mappings. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Prodigy : Wonder → gifted person vs abstract amazement; not an oversight role.(b) Chef : Banquet → a chef prepares/serves; not primarily an adjudicating official.(c) Legislator : Election → legislator is elected in an election; again, not presiding over it.(d) Moderator : Debate → moderators oversee and regulate debates; exact analogue of umpire→game. Verification / Alternative check: Both “umpire→game” and “moderator→debate” express neutral oversight to enforce rules/time/order. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They indicate roles related to production or participation rather than adjudication. Common Pitfalls: Confusing any role associated with an event (e.g., chef at banquet) with the official who arbitrates. Final Answer: Moderator : Debate

Question 6

Analogy — Select the pair showing alternative methods within one domain: Fly : Walk

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Fly” and “Walk” are both modes of locomotion—alternative methods within one domain (movement). We must choose an option that similarly presents two alternative methods within a shared activity domain. Given Data / Assumptions: Fly vs walk: different techniques of the same general action (moving from A to B). Look for two distinct techniques of a common practice. Concept / Approach: Eliminate pairs that show states (not methods), categories (not techniques), or unrelated roles. Prefer “method A vs method B” within one activity. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Sit : Sleep → states of rest, not methods of a single actionable domain.(b) Roast : Bake → both are cooking methods; mirrors alternative techniques like fly vs walk.(c) Sky : Earth → locations/categories, not methods.(d) Pilot : Captain → professional roles/titles, not techniques. Verification / Alternative check: “Locomotion” with methods fly/walk maps to “cooking” with methods roast/bake. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Not procedural methods; (c) nouns denoting realms; (d) roles, not methods. Common Pitfalls: Interpreting “fly : walk” as opposites; they are alternatives, not antonyms. Final Answer: Roast : Bake

Question 7

Analogy — Match the part-to-whole (attribute/body covering) relation: Scale : Fish

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Scale : Fish” expresses a part-to-whole relation where the part is a natural body covering of the whole. We need an option where the first term is similarly a natural covering or integral part of the second organism. Given Data / Assumptions: Scales are integral to fish anatomy. Seek an anatomical part→organism mapping, in the same direction (part first, whole second). Concept / Approach: Reject pairs that are apparel, reversed direction, or class–member relationships. Prefer anatomical coverings linked to the living being they belong to. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Lady : Dress → clothing worn, not an anatomical part.(b) Tree : Leaves → reversed direction (whole→part), while the stem is part→whole.(c) Bird : Feather → whole→part direction again reversed.(d) Skin : Man → skin is a natural anatomical covering; matches part→whole direction and type. Verification / Alternative check: “Scale→fish” parallels “skin→man” as coverings intrinsic to the organism. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Apparel, not anatomy; (b) and (c) invert the direction. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking order of terms (part first vs whole first) in analogy problems. Final Answer: Skin : Man

Question 8

Analogy — Choose the correct “work → creator” mapping: Book : Author

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem presents a “work → creator” relation: a book is authored by an author. We must find the option where the first item is a creative work and the second is the person who creates it. Given Data / Assumptions: “Book→author” is a canonical work–creator mapping. Analog should reflect artwork/creation vs its human originator. Concept / Approach: Eliminate cause–effect, instrument–effect, or category–member options. Prefer a recognized art form paired with its maker. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Rain : Flood → cause→effect meteorological relation.(b) Light : Switch → switch controls light; not a creator.(c) Symphony : Composer → a composer creates a symphony; matches.(d) Song : Music → instance vs category, not creator. Verification / Alternative check: Both “book→author” and “symphony→composer” are standard creator relations in language tests. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They lack the creator role or confuse categories and mechanisms. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking controller/instrument relations (switch→light) for creator relations. Final Answer: Symphony : Composer

Question 9

Analogy — (Recovery Applied) Choose the part-to-whole construction: Letter : Word

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: (Recovery applied) The provided stem “Latter : Word” appears to be a typographical error; the intended analogy is almost certainly “Letter : Word.” Letters combine to form a word, exhibiting a part → whole (building unit → constructed unit) relation. We must pick an option that mirrors this composition mechanism. Given Data / Assumptions: Letters are atomic symbols; words are sequences of letters. We seek a pair where the first item aggregates to form the second. Concept / Approach: Identify composition vs location vs production: pick the pair that shows smaller units assembling into a larger textual/structural unit. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Homework : School → task vs place; not composition.(b) Club : People → people compose a club (member→group), but the order is inverted (people→club would match; however “club : people” is whole→members).(c) Product : Factory → production site, not component assembly.(d) Page : Book → pages assemble to form a book; mirrors letters→word in structure. Verification / Alternative check: Both pairs present “units combine → composite object” in language/media contexts (letters→word; pages→book). Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Place of activity; (b) reversed order and social-organization semantics; (c) production venue, not components. Common Pitfalls: Not correcting the obvious typo; analogy items often require light recovery to preserve solvability. Final Answer: Page : Book

Question 10

Analogy — Choose the best cause → creative output mapping: Inspiration : Poetry

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Inspiration : Poetry” indicates that the first item (inspiration) is a motivating cause or source that gives rise to the second (poetry). We need a pair that similarly maps a generative source to its mental/creative output. Given Data / Assumptions: Inspiration sparks poetic creation. We prefer a mental/creative causation analogue over physical or instrumental relations. Concept / Approach: Classify options: category–member, cause–effect (physical), tool–product, or mind–product. Choose the one that best reflects a cognitive source generating an abstract output. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Music : Notes → reversed; notes compose music, not vice versa.(b) Dirt : Disease → a physical cause can lead to disease; while a cause→effect pair, it is biomedical rather than creative/mental and less parallel in nature.(c) Brush : Painting → instrument→product; tool is not the generative source in the cognitive sense.(d) Mind : Thought → the mind generates thoughts; this closely mirrors inspiration leading to poetry as a creative product. Verification / Alternative check: Both pairs are “intangible cognitive source → abstract product” mappings (inspiration→poetry; mind→thought). Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Reversed composition; (b) physical pathology cause; (c) tool-based production rather than mental generation. Common Pitfalls: Choosing any cause–effect pair (b) without matching the creative/cognitive domain of the stem. Final Answer: Mind : Thought

Question 11

Analogy — Select the item-to-category relation: Hockey : Game

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Hockey : Game” shows an item-to-category mapping: hockey is a type of game. We must find the option where the first term is a particular instance or member of the general class named by the second term. Given Data / Assumptions: Hockey belongs to the category “game.” Seek a parallel “specific example → category label.” Concept / Approach: Eliminate function, producer, or action relations. Choose the pair that cleanly states “X is a Y (category).” Step-by-Step Solution: (a) King : Rule → agent vs activity; not category.(b) Constitution : Assembly → document vs body that drafts/adopts; not category membership.(c) Book : Read → object vs action; not category.(d) Latin : Language → Latin is a language; precise item→category relation. Verification / Alternative check: “Hockey is a game” parallels “Latin is a language.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: They depict roles, institutions, or actions rather than membership in a class. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking action/usage relations (book→read) for category relations. Final Answer: Latin : Language

Question 12

Analogy — Disabuse : Error Choose the pair that best mirrors the relationship “disabuse : error.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In verbal analogies, the task is to preserve the underlying relation between the first pair when selecting the second. “Disabuse : error” encodes a verb–object relation in which the action removes or corrects a negative state. To disabuse someone is to free that person from a misconception or error. We must find a second pair that similarly expresses “to free from / remedy” a harmful condition. Given Data / Assumptions: Disabuse means “to set right” or “to rid of error.” We seek a verb whose action counteracts or removes the noun's harmful state. Candidate pairs should mirror a corrective/remedial relation rather than a causative or destructive one. Concept / Approach: Identify whether the verb improves, repairs, or eliminates the noun’s negative condition. Reject pairs where the verb harms the noun (e.g., discredit → reputation) or where the semantics mismatch (e.g., belittle → imperfection is not a standard collocation and does not remove an imperfection). Step-by-Step Solution: Map the first pair: disabuse → remove error.Test “Rehabilitate : Addiction”: rehabilitate aims to free someone from addiction (treatment and recovery).Check other options: “Discredit : Reputation” damages, not heals; “Persevere : Dereliction” is ill-formed; “Belittle : Imperfection” does not remove an imperfection. Verification / Alternative check: Both “disabuse” and “rehabilitate” have corrective valence: they counteract a detrimental state (error, addiction). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Persevere : Dereliction — semantic mismatch; perseverance does not relate to dereliction. Discredit : Reputation — harmful action, not corrective. Belittle : Imperfection — belittling does not fix imperfections. Common Pitfalls: Confusing any verb–noun pairing for the precise “removal of a negative condition” relation. Final Answer: Rehabilitate : Addiction

Question 13

Analogy — Identity : Anonymity Select the pair that shows the same antonym relationship.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy tests recognition of antonyms. “Identity : Anonymity” contrasts the condition of being identifiable with the state of being nameless or unidentifiable. We must choose another clean antonym pair that mirrors this oppositional relation. Given Data / Assumptions: Identity ≠ anonymity (they oppose each other conceptually). Correct choices must present strict opposites, not merely related concepts. Concept / Approach: Filter options by true antonymy. Eliminate pairs that are causally related or only loosely contrary. We prefer universal, dictionary-grade opposites to avoid ambiguity. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate “Truth : Lie” — direct antonyms across logic and language.“Flaw : Perfection” — near-opposites but not strict antonyms (a flawless object contrasts “flaw,” but “perfection” is a superlative condition).“Careless : Mistake” — cause–effect, not antonyms.“Fear : Joy” — generally opposite affects, but different emotional axes; not canonical antonyms. Verification / Alternative check: Reference usage confirms “truth” versus “lie” as a standard antonym pair, like “identity” versus “anonymity.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Flaw : Perfection — semantic level mismatch. Careless : Mistake — causation, not opposition. Fear : Joy — contrary valence but not lexical antonyms. Common Pitfalls: Accepting contraries or correlates instead of strict opposites. Final Answer: Truth : Lie

Question 14

Analogy — Emollient : Soothe Choose the pair with the same agent–function relationship.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An “emollient” is a substance used to soothe or soften (especially skin). The relationship is agent (or instrument) → function. We must select a second pair that preserves this “thing performs action” mapping. Given Data / Assumptions: Emollient performs the function “soothe.” We seek a device or agent whose core function is expressed by the verb. Concept / Approach: Filter for a clear instrumentality relation: X is something that does Y. Reject pairs where the left term is not an agent/device, or where the right term is not the function. Step-by-Step Solution: “Dynamo : Generate” — a dynamo is a device that generates electricity. Agent → function holds.“Elevation : Level” — nouns; not an agent–function relation.“Hurricane : Track” — a hurricane does not “track”; forecasters track hurricanes.“Precipitation : Fall” — precipitation is the result of falling; not a tool performing an action. Verification / Alternative check: Dictionary senses align: emollient → soothe; dynamo → generate (power). The relational pattern is parallel. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Elevation : Level — category mismatch. Hurricane : Track — role reversal; humans track hurricanes. Precipitation : Fall — process/result, not instrumentality. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking any co-occurring terms for the stricter agent-performs-function mapping. Final Answer: Dynamo : Generate

Question 15

Analogy — King : Palace Pick the pair that has the same occupant–dwelling relationship.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “King : Palace” expresses a typical inhabitant and its customary dwelling. We must choose an option that mirrors “occupant → proper abode.” Given Data / Assumptions: Royalty → palace is a conventional pairing. We seek animal/person → natural/habitual dwelling. Concept / Approach: Eliminate options where the dwelling is not characteristic or where the relation is institutionally wrong. Identify the one that preserves “typical inhabitant–habitat.” Step-by-Step Solution: “Lion : Den” — canonical animal–dwelling mapping.“Convict : House” — incorrect; “prison” or “jail” would fit.“Nun : Temple” — typical term is “convent” or “monastery,” not “temple.”“Hare : Hole” — closer (burrow), but not as canonical as lion–den among standard analogy sets. Verification / Alternative check: Common usage and children’s primers list “lion lives in a den.” The relational strength matches king–palace. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Convict : House — wrong institution. Nun : Temple — mis-specified religious dwelling. Hare : Hole — possible, but the conventional textbook pair is “rabbit/hare → burrow.” Common Pitfalls: Accepting loosely related habitats rather than conventional, named abodes. Final Answer: Lion : Den

Question 16

Analogy — Hair : Shampoo Choose the pair that maintains the object–appropriate cleansing agent relation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Hair : Shampoo” maps an object to the product typically used to clean it. We must find a second pair with the same cleaning-target relation. Given Data / Assumptions: Hair is cleaned with shampoo. We seek X : Y where Y is the normal cleansing agent for X. Concept / Approach: Eliminate pairs that are cosmetic but not cleansing, or that reverse object–agent roles. Step-by-Step Solution: “Teeth : Toothpaste” — canonical pair for oral cleaning.“Face : Powder” — powder is cosmetic, not a cleanser.“Button : Shirt” — part–whole, not cleaning relation.“Detergent : Soap” — two cleansers; not object–cleanser. Verification / Alternative check: Standard hygiene routines pair teeth with toothpaste as hair with shampoo. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Face : Powder — function mismatch. Button : Shirt — categorical mismatch. Detergent : Soap — both agents; missing the object. Common Pitfalls: Choosing cosmetic association over cleaning function. Final Answer: Teeth : Toothpaste

Question 17

Analogy — Ring : Engagement Select the pair that parallels “symbol–occasion/pact.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A ring is a conventional symbol used in an engagement ceremony. We must find a second pair where the first item symbolizes or ceremonially marks the second event or pact. Given Data / Assumptions: Ring → engagement (symbolic/ceremonial association). We seek “gesture/object → agreement/occasion.” Concept / Approach: Identify a customary act that seals or represents a formal agreement. Discard options that are causal, unrelated, or nonsensical. Step-by-Step Solution: “Handshake : Treaty” — a handshake symbolizes/ratifies agreement; fits.“Kick : Beat” — violence/action, not symbolism.“Anger : Insult” — emotion–act, not symbol–occasion.“Bang! : Wrist” — incoherent pairing. Verification / Alternative check: Common diplomatic imagery features leaders shaking hands after a treaty—parallel to rings exchanged at engagements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Kick : Beat — not ceremonial. Anger : Insult — misaligned relation. Bang! : Wrist — category and sense mismatch. Common Pitfalls: Confusing causation or emotion with formal symbolism. Final Answer: Handshake : Treaty

Question 18

Analogy — Drama : Audience Pick the option that mirrors “performance : its viewers.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Drama : Audience” encodes a production seen by viewers. We seek a parallel “event : its viewers” relationship. Given Data / Assumptions: Drama is performed; an audience watches. We need an event whose observers are named in the pair. Concept / Approach: Prefer options where the right-hand term denotes viewers/observers of the left-hand event, not participants or creators. Step-by-Step Solution: “Game : Spectators” — matches event → viewers.“Art : Critic” — critic evaluates works; not the general viewing public relation.“Movie : Actors” — actors are performers, not viewers.“Brawl : Vagabonds” — no stable semantic relation; also pejorative/irrelevant. Verification / Alternative check: Sports coverage routinely contrasts “players” and “spectators,” paralleling “actors” and “audience.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Art : Critic — evaluator, not general audience. Movie : Actors — performers, not viewers. Brawl : Vagabonds — invalid mapping. Common Pitfalls: Confusing producers/performers with viewers. Final Answer: Game : Spectators

Question 19

Analogy — Sorrow : Misery Choose the option that preserves the synonym relation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair “sorrow : misery” presents near-synonyms (intense sadness). The correct answer must likewise present a conventional synonymy relation rather than cause/effect or degree shifts. Given Data / Assumptions: Sorrow ≈ misery (shared negative affect). We need a pair with similarly tight semantic proximity. Concept / Approach: Evaluate whether the relation is synonymy, not mere association. Dismiss pairs that change part of speech, imply causation, or represent different emotional categories. Step-by-Step Solution: “Happiness : Joy” — accepted synonyms (positive affect states).“Amity : Harmony” — close, but amity concerns friendly relations; harmony is broader (agreement/accord), slightly different domains.“Love : Obsession” — not synonyms; obsession is pathological intensity.“Enemy : Hatred” — entity vs emotion; not same category. Verification / Alternative check: Thesaurus entries list happiness and joy as common substitutes in many contexts, mirroring sorrow/misery closeness. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Love : Obsession — degree/pathology mismatch. Amity : Harmony — domain drift; not strict synonyms. Enemy : Hatred — category mismatch. Common Pitfalls: Choosing words with similar valence rather than true synonymy. Final Answer: Happiness : Joy

Question 20

Analogy — Launcher : Missiles Select the device–projectile relation that matches.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Launcher : Missiles” expresses a device designed to propel a specified projectile. We must find a parallel pair with a device that launches/propels its characteristic projectile. Given Data / Assumptions: Launcher → launches missiles. Parallel should be device → its projectile/object launched. Concept / Approach: Discard pairs where the second term is not the projectile, where the first term is not the device, or where both are co-hyponyms (same category items) rather than device–output. Step-by-Step Solution: “Catapult : Stone” — a catapult propels stones/bolts; matches device–projectile.“Gun : Revolver” — both are firearms; revolver is a type of gun (category conflict).“Boat : Anchor” — anchor is dropped, not launched as a projectile.“Engine : Train” — engine powers a train, not a projectile relation. Verification / Alternative check: History and physics examples list catapults launching stones, analogous to missile launchers launching missiles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Gun : Revolver — hyponymy, not device–projectile. Boat : Anchor — function is mooring, not launching. Engine : Train — traction, not projectile. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “powers/contains” relations with “launches/propels.” Final Answer: Catapult : Stone

Analogy Questions