When one claims Neil Simon's screenplay for California Suite will be good because of enjoyment from his last movie, which logical fallacy is used?

The correct identification of the logical fallacy in this scenario relates to the faulty analogy being drawn between two separate works by Neil Simon. By suggesting that the enjoyment derived from his previous film guarantees a similarly positive experience with California Suite, the argument fails to account for differences in content, context, audience reception, and other factors that could influence a viewer's enjoyment.

A faulty analogy occurs when a comparison is made between two things that are not logically comparable in the relevant aspects. In this case, equating the success or enjoyment of one screenplay with another simply based on the author's past performance overlooks individual differences in narrative, style, and production. This fallacy leads to a misleading assumption that prior success directly predicts future success without sufficient evidence to support that relationship.