In a one compares familiar examples with the issue being disputed and if the 2 cases are similar in relevant ways, then whatever one concludes about the first familiar case one should also conclude about the disputed case.

The defendant and an accomplice were on trial together for burglary. both had given confessions implicating themselves and their accomplice. at trial, the defendant maintained that his confession had been obtained through improper coercion by the police. for the purpose of countering the claim of coercion, the prosecution seeks to place the accomplice’s confession into evidence. after objection by the defendant’s counsel, the judge agrees to issue a limiting instruction to the jury that the confession is to be considered only with regard to the question of whether the defendant’s confession was coerced. may the accomplice’s confession be admitted under that condition?

Why were so many distinctive cultures able to develop over time in asia?

Einar sees alexandra every day across the room in his history class but has never talked with her. einar likes the way alexandra looks, including the way she dresses and how she wears her hair. he's even more attracted to her apparent intelligence and the way she handles herself in class discussions and during interactions with the instructor. he'd like to know more about her, so he asks one of his friends about her. einar, using a passive strategy to gain information about her, is probably in the preinteraction awareness stage of any relationship that might develop between them. t/f