<p>i have no idea what you guys are talking about, are the test sets that different?</p>
<p>So did you put subject to whim because the jurors being maniuplated seemed to me to be weak on passage 2... he never stated that they were easy to maipulate.</p>
<p>One of the quotes was by a specific attorney while the other was a statement any attorney could make.</p>
<p>I don't remember "inexperienced." Well, I do remember that being one of the choices for one of the questions but not which question it was or whether it was the right answer.</p>
<p>And yeah, some of the test sets are really different.</p>
<p>i have no idea what u guys are talking about...</p>
<p>sentence completion questions were pretty easy to me...</p>
<p>yeah, letmepass, you and I had a totally different set of sentence completions.</p>
<p>xyzzy240 , which sentence completion answers do you remember?</p>
<p>impasse
square
fleeting
...?</p>
<p>anyone remember what "inexperienced" was about</p>
<p>The author never himself stated that they were easy to manipulate, but the question asked "About which of the following statements would the authors of the two passages agree that <em>many people believe</em> about juries?"...or something like that.</p>
<p>Impasse was an answer, fleeting was one, don't remember square.</p>
<p>The inexperienced one was talking about how witnesses saw things (it was a definition word) passage 2 early on.</p>
<p>passage 1 didn't quote a published document, did it...</p>
<p>Oh, right. I said unprocessed.</p>
<p>For the one about having a glint in ones eye (CR about an artist passage) did you put hes not sure if he saw it because he states that almost explicity in the next line.</p>
<p>do you remember for which word...i just remember defining raw and curiousity</p>
<p>Well it said like the eyewitness thing was something and something from witnesses and was made into a concrete and concise thing or something. I put inexperienced because unprocessed seem like a real definition of it</p>
<p>for the glint, I put that he thought he saw something but wasn't sure</p>
<p>Yes it did; it quoted some journal with legal advice or whatever.</p>
<p>I said a subtle display of emotion that may or may not have been there, yeah.</p>
<p>I thought unprocessed was good because the author argued that lawyers basically "refine" witnesses' testimonies into a logical argument that is persuasive in court.</p>
<p>did anyone else get the published document thing for the lawyer paragrapg 1, cause I thought it was something else</p>
<p>yes i didn't see refined or the one about easy manipulation of jurors.. damn i didn't read the questions close enough.</p>
<p>i got published document, i had spare time so i looked for all of them</p>
<p>uggh...xyzz i wish i could have borrowed your brain for the cr</p>