Evaluating an Analogy

According to Epstein, the seven question a person must ask to evaluate an analogy to make sure that it is plausible and strong are:

1. Is this an argument? What is the conclusion?
2. What is the comparison?
3. What are the premises? (one or both sides of the comparison)
4. What are the similarities?
5. Can we state the similarities as premises and find a general principle that covers the two sides?
6. Does the general principle really apply to both sides? Do the differences matter?
7. Is the argument strong or valid? Is is good?

In an earlier post I used an everyday example of reasoning by analogy and I am going to analyze it using Epstein's seven questions. My example  was no matter how long it has been since you last drove, you can never forget how to drive a car because learning how to drive a car is like learning how to ride a bike, once you know how to do it, you will never forget how.

1. Yes, it is an argument. The conclusion is a driver can never forget how to drive. 
2. I compared knowing how to drive a car to knowing how drive a bicycle.
3. The premises are knowing how to drive a car is like knowing how to ride bicycle and you can never forget how to do either one of them once you know how.
4. The similarities between riding a bicycle and driving a car are that they are both forms of transportation, almost anyone can learn both once they are of age, they both have wheels, they are used on roads, they can cause accidents, they are controlled by a person who steers them, they have breaks, they made of metal, they can go fast, they both have pedals, you sit on them, and they are used by people around the world. 
5. Yes, they are both common forms of human transportation that are learned by individuals using a standard set of controls and rules. 
6. Although there are some similarities between the two, cars and bicycles are completely different forms of transportation but in this case the differences are not significant since we arguing about forgetting how to use them.
7. The argument is valid but it is not necessarily good since riding a bike can be learned at a very young age while a person must be at least 15 to start learning how to drive a car so not everyone can relate to this analogy. Also cars are much more expensive than bicycles and this creates a big gap between car owners however this can also be a good argument because we can assume that most people in the world know how to ride a bike so even though they may have never driven a car they can understand that once they learn how they will never forget since they have never forgotten how to ride their bike.