Judging analogies

Judging analogies are basically analogies / arguments that are made without proper premises. In other words, your supporting claims do not completely back up your conclusion, hence, the other person ends up claiming that your claim is weak. In the words of Epstein, "one side of the analogy is like, the other side is too vague to use as  a premises."

For example :
An elephant eats anywhere between 200 to 400 pounds per day; on the other hand, humans on average consume anywhere between 3000 to 4000 calories per day.

So, does this mean that, all of the elephants combined eat more per day than all of the humans combined ?
Of course not !  This is an example of an argument trying to argue that what is true of an individual is true for the group . Furthermore, the type of food / diet a human follows is not clear. It would certainly differ. Other details for the elephant are if the elephant is a wild one, or a tamed one. Therefore, we can conclude that, with this as the example, the differences between the units of an individual and the group is too large to analyze.