This article aims to provide cognitively motivated evidence for the nonequivalence view of simile and metaphor. This evidence was derived from a study based on two preference tasks in which participants were asked to select the linguistic form that conveys the comparison most adequately and naturally. Adopting Gentner's (1983) "Structure-Mapping" analysis, I was able to establish a correlation between the type of comparison (attributive, relational, or double) and the means speakers select to best represent each such comparison. The results of this study strongly suggest that similes are the preferred linguistic representation for mapping attributive predicates, whereas metaphors are favored for mapping relational predicates. The study further considered the results of the double comparisons. (Ravid Aisenman)