In Class: Logic

The one thing that I found odd in the logos chapter was the discussion of interviews. The interview they selected was about an arsonist. They were claiming that he was a terrorist and in turn he was saying that if he was a terrorist, then the companies doing the polluting should also be considered terrorists. I just kind of wondered what the logical argument they were discussing was. After reading the article, the book asks if the interviewer was being unbiased or if he was leading his questions on way or the other. So it just makes me wonder if we are supposed to think of the entire thing, the interviewee and the interviewer as both making or asking logical questions or if it's just supposed to be one or the other.
The analogies part also confused me. It seemed as if the book gave a good analogy and then said, no, wait, analogies aren't a good way to use logical appeal because they are overused and used improperly. The book says they are routinely abused, but personally, I thought the one in the book was good.