It is not enough to recite the four elements of analogy: original case, new case, ruling, and operative cause. First establish that the ruling attributed to the original case is supported by valid evidence; then examine the suitability of the cause and its occurrence in the new case.
One argument offers superficial resemblance without proving the original ruling. Another proves the original ruling but never establishes why the alleged common attribute is legally operative. These defects differ, and neither is repaired by saying “the cases look alike.”
Correction: Verify each link in the analogy: original ruling, operative cause, presence in the new case, and absence of a relevant bar to extension.