 What are the implications of Norton’s material theory when it comes to evaluating analogical arguments? The fact of the analogy is a local uniformity that powers the inference. Norton’s theory works well when such a uniformity is patent or naturally inferred. It doesn’t work well when the uniformity is itself the target (rather than the driver) of the inference. That happens with explanatory analogies such as  Example 5  (the Acoustical Analogy), and mathematical analogies such as  Example 7  (Rectangles and Boxes). Similarly, the theory doesn’t work well when the underlying uniformity is unclear, as in  Example 2  (Life on other Planets),  Example 4  (Clay Pots), and many other cases. In short, if Norton’s theory is accepted, then for most analogical arguments there are no useful evaluation criteria.