Each of the following is intended to be a refutation by logical analogy. Identify the argument being refuted in each and the refuting analogy, and decide whether they do indeed have the same argument form.

Artificial human minds will never be made (we are told) because “artificial intelligence investigation is based on advanced solid-state physics, whereas the humble human brain is a viable semiliquid system!” That is no more reassuring than the suggestion that automobiles could never replace horses because they are made of metal, while the humble horse is a viable organic system with legs of flesh and bone.

—Michael D. Rohr, The New York Times , 27 March 1998