I need help answering these question

The article is Shouting Fire by Alan M. Dershowitz

1. The key propositions in Holmes's argument are as follows:

(1) Shouting "Fire!" in a theater creates a "clear and present

danger."

(2) Creating a "clear and present danger" is not protected

by the First Amendment.

(3) Shouting "Fire!" in a theater is not protected by the First

Amendment.

(4) Schenck's distributing the leaflet to draftees is similar to

shouting "Fire!" in a theater.

(5) Schenck's distributing the leaflet to draftees is not protected

by the First Amendment.

Diagram the argument.

2. In an analogical argument, the first thing to check is the

premise that makes the similarity claim-in this case, proposition

(4). What similarities are there between Schenck's

distributing the leaflet and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded

theater?

3. In paragraphs 5 and 6, Dershowitz quotes Holmes as stating

that the First Amendment does not protect words that cause

a panic, "words that may have all the effect of force," or words

that create an "clear and present danger." Given what you

know about Schenck's case, does it seem that his distributing

the leaflet falls under any of these categories? If so, why? If

not, what characteristic of Schenck's action prevents it from

doing so?

4. Dershowitz thinks Holmes made a bad analogy, and he states

what he thinks are two important disanalogies in paragraphs

7 and 10~ What are they? How do they fit with your answers

to question 3?

5. In paragraph 8, Dershowitz offers what he thinks is a better

analogy for shouting "Fire!" in a theater; and in paragraph

11, he offers what he thinks is a better analogy for Schenck's

handing out leaflets. Are they in fact better analogies?