"Habermas claims that at least two out of three scholars (and maybe more) writing on the empty tomb since 1975 grant its historicity with a view toward the resurrection of Jesus. In other words, they either hold or are open to the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for why the tomb was empty. Habermas's moderate-to-strong majority does not include those who grant the historicity of the empty tomb while explaining it naturally…. When these are taken into consideration...there is a degree of heterogeneity to the majority who argue for the historicity of the empty tomb, although its cause is disputed.... Thus the empty tomb may be added to a collection of facts pertaining to Jesus' fate that are granted by a significant majority of scholars writing on the subject."*
Notice that the 75%, which is already a sizeable majority, does not include those who grant that the tomb was, in fact, empty, but think a natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one. That means the majority of scholars who accept the empty tomb as historical fact is actually even higher than 3 out of 4. You can read the details of Dr. Habermas' findings here.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not claiming that something is true just in virtue of the fact that a lot of scholars hold to it (that would indeed be fallacious). But it minimally demonstrates that it is entirely wrongheaded to dismiss the question "How do you explain the empty tomb," on the grounds that it is equivalent to asking, "How do you explain the yellow brick road?" It is not.
*Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010), 461-62.