<p>[line 46] Most of what has been presented to this jury to stir up feeling in your souls has not the slightest bearing on proving conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Lloyd's speech in Milwaukee. It had nothing to do with conspiracy. Whether the speech was a joke or was serious, I will not attempt to discuss. But I will say with certain it was as mild as a summer's shower compared with many of the statements of those who are responsible for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people in high places that those individuals who express sympathy with labor should be stood up against the wall and shot. We have heard people of position declare that individuals who criticize the actions of those getting rich should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and send out ot sea. Every violent appeal that could be conceived by the brain has been used by the powerful and the strong.<br>
[line 62] I repeat, Mr. Lloyd's speech was gentle in comparison. . . .</p>
<p>In lines 46-62, Darrow's defense rests mainly on convincing the jury that
(A) a double standard is being employed
(B) the prosecution's evidence is untrustworthy
(C) the defendants share mainstream American values
(D) labor unions have the right to strike
(E) the defendants should be tried by a federal rather than a state court</p>
<p>Why the deuce is the answer A? Could someone please explain to me why Darrow's defense rests on convincing the jury that a double standard is being employed?</p>
<p>Also, what sat books would be good to practice critical reading on after I’ve exhausted everything out of the BB? And what tips would you give for a desperate individual who’s attempting to increase his CR score from 650~700 to an 800?</p>
<p>Hi there. I’m someone who want to “increase his CR score from 650~700 to an 800” as well. As for the question, the lawyer says that Lloyd’s statements are relatively mild while he is ecountered with the charge. At the same time, “those who are responsible for working conditions” have harsher statements while they are not persecuted at all. This makes a double standard here.</p>
<p>I don’t get it… Could you please break down the locution “double standard being employed” for me?</p>
<p>I’m not so hot with CR right now, but I think a “Double Standard” means discriminating between people with different standards. An example being making an exception for the people that make harsher statements, but not for the one making mild statements.</p>
<p>A “double standard” is when one person can do something but the other person cannot. For example, to say that moms are supposed to stay at home to watch the children while the father has a job because it’s “parenting” but then to say afterward that moms cannot go and have a job and have the father parent the children would be called a “double standard.” </p>
<p>It cannot be choices C, d, or E because the passage mentions nothing of this in terms of concrete nor abstract detail.</p>
<p>Now, it is down to either A or B. This is where it gets tricky. See what the passage is trying to say in those lines. The first sentence says “Most of what has been presented to this jury to stir up feeling in your souls has not the slightest bearing on proving conspiracy in this case.” </p>
<p>From this you know that EVERYONE who presented something to the jury did the same thing - both Mr. Lloyd and the “rich” and “powerful” people - of not providing statements that are relevant to the case, which is something to do with proving/disproving “conspiracy.”</p>
<p>As you read further, it says, “But I will say with certain it was as mild as a summer’s shower compared with many of the statements of those who are responsible for working conditions in this country.” It can be inferred that the person (darrow I supposed) is trying to convince the jury that Mr. Lloyd’s statement was not as bad as what those people “responsible” had said. darrow then continues with statements of such people in charge illustrating how violent they are.</p>
<p>So what is darrow trying to use to convince the jury? It definitely cannot be B, that the prosecutions’ evidence is untrustworthy. The author has no note of this in the passage. It has to be A because what darrow is trying to say, “Why can those people do all these horrible acts of violence on laborers just because they are rich and powerful and have the final word on everything while the people under them, the laborers, cannot?” which is clearly a double standard.</p>