Any analogy requires suspending disbelief.
There are always parts that don’t make sense.
If an analogy were perfect it would barely be an analogy.
It would instead replicate the complexity that it intended to simplify.
But aren’t some imperfect analogies more distracting than helpful?
How can you understand someone’s argument if you don’t understand the point they’re making?
Then again, if you don’t understand someone’s argument, you’re not in a position to comment on an analogy designed to demonstrate it.
You’re missing the point.
That’s the point.
Analogies are designed to demonstrate specific points, not provide a complete picture.
An accurate analogy is not the intention.
Shifts in perspective are hard, and analogies are never perfect, but neither get you off the hook.