Assume you are an attorney arguing on your client's behalf and relying on a court opinion to influence the court why your argument should succeed. Would you rather have a court opinion (case law)that is factually similar to your client's case, however the rules or principles of law are not the same or sufficiently similar you your client's case, or vice versa? Argue why one would be advantageous over the other (fact similarity vs. rule/law similarity)for full credit consideration.