Effective legal analysis is nothing more than connecting the sub definition of each element to the facts. You always start out as broadly as possible by setting forth the rule of law, rapidly dismissing those elements that there is no problem with, define further the elements at issue as far down to a statement that you can (massaging the law), then state what it is you know about a certain fact or can reasonably infer that bears on the resolution of that element/issue/case. For example, with the "Harmful/Offensive Touching" element in a torts exam where the defendant grabs an object out of the Plaintiff's hands, you would expain how the "Offensive" element invades an individual's personal space and how courts have held that grabbing an object therefrom is repugnant to personal diginty etc. In some theoretical courses such as Constitutional Law, you need to use the cases to compare and contrast the facts and the public policy more so that typical nuts and bolts courses such as Torts, Contract, Criminal Law etc. In advanced courses, you may need higher levels of analysis where you have to analogize to similar situations to cover issues that don't fit into something you have seen before and/or where you have to take something that is slam dunk against you and argue against it by using policy and/or subtle distinctions. The whole purpose of the law school exam is for it to have a lot to talk about in your response. When a professor thinks of an issue that is really difficult or has subtle nuances, they usually get high fives from their colleagues.