Two different challenges arise to the proposed analogy. Naqd: a third case appears to share the alleged cause but does not receive the claimed ruling; the counterexample must be investigated, including possible impediments. Farq: the new case lacks the relevant danger present in the original.
The first presents a counterinstance against the cause; the second identifies a legally material difference between the two cases. Each calls for a different response rather than a generic assertion that the analogy is wrong.