This study queries some points of Santibáñez's (2010) recent model which examines conceptual metaphors from the viewpoint of argumentation, asserting that it does not clearly indicates the general structure of arguing by metaphors, not plainly differentiates analogy- from metaphor argumentation, and not clearly denotes the role of conceptual metaphors in Toulmin's argumentation model. The study then handles these problems via the cases in Santibáñez (2010), with regard to Toulmin's ([1958]2003, [1978]1984) argumentation model, Juthe (2005)’s approach to analogy argumentation, and Kövecses (2010)’s conceptual metaphor analysis.