Does the government's use of analogies to enable jurors unfamiliar with securities trading to evaluate evidence in the context of securities trading constitute advocacy?

The government's use of analogies to enable jurors unfamiliar with securities trading to evaluate evidence in the context of "more accessible" crimes was not a model of advocacy. J.A. 11849. But the government is not barred from using such rhetorical devices so as to require a new trial here. See United States v. LaMorte, 950 F.2d 80, 85 (2d Cir. 1991) (concluding that reference to bomb exploding on airplane, in context of prosecution for marijuana distribution, did not deny defendant fair trial).