A false analogy is a common, logical, informal fallacy[1], which applies to inductive arguments[2].  The basis for deeming an analogy false stems from the data that is being compared, not the argument itself.  The argument structure is logical; however, the data chosen to analogize the two subjects is flawed.  The error in the data can be accounted to the fact that ignorance exists with regards to the (dis)similarities between the items in question.  With false analogies, inferences are made that either deny antecedents or affirm consequents.  Antecedents and consequents are, most simply, adjectives used to describe the locale of the data within the argument.  Algebraic equations are frequently used to codify the structure of a false analogy (x has property q, so y must have property q).

For instance, as stated on the website http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm, “Employees are like nails.  Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.”  It is not completely nonsensical to compare the two—qualities shared are that of utility and the physical possession of a head.  What must be recognized to validate the analogy as false are the facts that each tool (a nail and an employee) requires a different rubric of maintenance or upkeep, as well as the word ‘head’ being polysemous.  Babies and plants are alike in the sense that both demand high levels of attention and care, but babies are not watered.

Post 9-11 Americans (and residents of America) flocked to the notion that all Muslims are Jihadists.  To take this even further:  in an attempt to “further protect themselves”, all people with a caramel skin tone were labeled Muslims.  Don’t be bamboozled into thinking that because the false analogy was not audible or blatantly verbalized that it did/does not exist.   This is merely a cliché case of actions speaking louder than words.  Thinking that all Muslims are Jihadists is on the same mentality level as believing that all women are overly emotional.  Although women have XX chromosomes, they are not all emotional train wrecks.  Generalizations of a specific group of people (e.g. Muslims and women) are highly prevalent in this world. 

False analogies are somewhat derivative of confirmation seeking biases.  Information is collected and comparisons are contrived to back probable conclusions.  The details that are used to support the outcome are hand-picked to (only) back the thesis.  The key factor that is absent is the lack of research/thought devoted to disproving the analogy.

[1] Informal fallacy:  the basis of an argument fails to back the conclusion

[2] Inductive arguments:  premise provides reasons supporting probable truth; the conclusion is unlikely false; in deductive arguments the premise provides reasons supporting a definite truth; it is impossible for the conclusion to be false