Hi , sorry couldn't reply your last message. I have this assignment for you . I need it tomorrow . Can you do it? Thanks. 1. What are some of the challenges researchers confront in analogizing and distinguishing facts and cases? What are some suggestions for overcoming some of these challenges? 2. What are your observations about the process of legal analysis that courts engage in, as they are contained within published cases? 3. How might a legal researcher or writer try to explain or describe seemingly similar cases with different outcomes? What does it really mean, to distinguish one case (or legal conclusion) within a case, from another? Would it be more powerful to distinguish relying upon differences in the facts or the applicable laws? Does the same go for analogizing? How might a writer analogize two cases with seemingly different facts