EQV-03-03

Analogies — Type & Part Relationships

Two classic bridges: "is a kind of" (category) and "is a part of" (component). Keep them separate or traps win.

~5 min read•Difficulty 2/5

Two of the most tested analogy bridges describe how things belong together — but in very different ways.

One word is a specific example of the other's general class.

Direction matters: the specific word comes first here. ROSE : FLOWER (specific : general) is different from FLOWER : ROSE.

One word is a piece of the other; remove the part and the whole is incomplete.

Pair	Wrong bridge	Right bridge
FINGER : HAND	"a kind of hand" ❌	"a part of a hand" ✅
OAK : TREE	"a part of a tree" ❌	"a kind of tree" ✅

A finger is not a type of hand; an oak is not a piece of a tree. The wrong category is the favorite trap.

Ask: could you say "is a kind of"? If yes, it is type. If only "is a part of" works, it is part/whole.

Worked examples

Example 1 (difficulty 2/5)

Choose the pair whose words relate in the same way as: CHAPTER : BOOK

◎ Predict the answer first:

Test the bridge with the exact phrase "is a kind of" or "is a part of" — only one will sound right.
Keep the direction: specific-to-general or part-to-whole must match the question’s order.
A container relationship (LIBRARY : BOOK) is neither type nor part — do not mistake it for whole/part.

Calling a part relationship a type relationship

Why: Both describe "belonging", so they feel interchangeable.

Fix: Only "is a kind of" marks a type; if you must say "is a part of", it is part/whole.

Choosing the reversed pair

Why: POEM : LINE uses the same two ideas as CHAPTER : BOOK but in flipped order.

Fix: Match direction: part-first must stay part-first.