People often resort for an explanation something to similarity use. It is always simpler to human mind to apprehend something not really difficult, and then to transfer by analogy to more difficult object or system. Here therefore since the childhood all of us are taught on similarity. At first explain on something simple, then transfer to something similar, but more difficult. For example, it is the simplest to explain the principle of work of a gear box in the car through an example of a gear shift by bicycle.
People so got used to analogy use that they often in the reasonings begin to use at any opportunity. And often it happens that try to apply analogy it is absolutely inappropriate. For example, recently I met article in one local newspaper. It was talked about the idea of modernization of one old five-storey building in our city, by a superstructure over it 4 more floors! And as analogy, journalists found an example of successful reconstruction of the similar building in other city. Only in that example repair of the five-storey building consisted not in a superstructure of new floors, and in strengthening of walls, a new facade and a new roof. Excess floors weren't added there! It is an obvious example of false analogy.
Or often I hear an example of "narrow-minded" logic – if one person is similar to someone externally, then and in his behavior similarity for some reason is expected. Or if someone sometimes makes some action similar to other character, many right there draw parallels – "Coincidence? I don't think so!".
At the end of the last century there appeared a law of Godwin which author noticed that in process of growth of a discussion in network, the probability of comparison or Hitler's mention aspires to 100% regardless of a discussion subject)))
Really, we can find in any actions of any person any similarity with the founder and the central figure of national socialism.
Use of similar analogies always "cuts my ears", however many quietly "swallow" it and even take the statement for granted.