PT122.S3.P1.Q4

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

This says financial aid should be necessary for any use of stop-action and highlighting. Two problems. First, the author doesn’t go so far as to suggest that any of his recommendations are downright necessary to keep using CG displays. His recommendations are just offered to help avoid misuse. Second, financial aid isn’t proposed to tackle the misuse of any particular techniques—it’s to tackle the inaccessibility of CG displays in general. To prevent the misuse of specific techniques, the author recommends other measures: data analysis, scrutiny by judges, and education of jurors.

Unsupported comparison. The author doesn’t discuss the relative effectiveness of different kinds of displays. He just acknowledges that CG displays as a whole have their uses.

Unsupported comparison. The author doesn’t consider how important CG displays are relative to other kinds of evidence. In fact, he doesn’t discuss other kinds of evidence at all. He just acknowledges that CG displays have their uses and drawbacks.

Anti-supported. The author doesn’t suggest that the realism or persuasiveness of CG displays depends at all on how good the underlying data are. In fact, he’s concerned that CG displays can be inherently misleading, and he recommends that the underlying data be analyzed for problems. This suggests he’s worried that even CG displays built on bad data can be persuasive to jurors and end up misleading them.