<p>oceanangel , I dont think ‘‘comforting’’ was among the answer choices …</p>
<p>About the ‘‘rights’’ I was running out of time and since the tones of the passages are ''derisive ‘’ and ‘‘laudatory’’ ,and the author of passage one ''criticize a method ‘’ while the author of passage two ''explains a technique ‘’ ,I think the reaction of author 2 to the statement in passage I would not be negative.As we already agreed that the author of passage two ‘‘explains a technique’’ ,I think that he would just say that the lawyers can manipulate the jury ,just because they HAVE RIGHTS to do so,this is their job 
According to all the other answer choices,the author of passage two would criticize the lawyers who manipulate the jury ,and I dont think this is correct,since the tone of passage 2 ,compared to the tone of passage 1 is laudatory :)</p>
<p>Yeah I think comforting was one of the options - I remember putting that one… Wasn’t sure if it was right, though…</p>
<p>Sci-fry ? Wasnt the answer peaceful AND comforting ???</p>
<p>Hmm… Don’t remember now. I thought there was just one word, but I might be wrong.</p>
<p>It just doesnt make sense.I remember I had to choose between compelling and peaceful.Peaceful and comforting sound just about the same ;)</p>
<p>peace‧ful S3 /"pi:sf</p>
<p>I’m very sure comforting was one of the options LOL it was a one word choice. I thought this question came up earlier in the thread and agreed on comforting… LOL maybe not haha but comforting makes most sense if you read the author’s description again…I also chose comforting because of the word prayer. And the author said that he would always watch his dad paint before going to sleep, which shows how comforting his dad painting could be.</p>
<p>Oh I remember now! For the lawyers question, I put that conscientious lawyrs would not do so. I remember in passage 2 that the author talked about how ‘conscientious’ lawyers would not make up stories, but rearrage facts into a logical narrative.</p>
<p>Oh and of course the author’s response could be negative. Passage two disagrees with passage one! LOL I don’t think passage 2 talks about rights at all… That’s why I didn’t pick that choice</p>
<p>''Oh and of course the author’s response could be negative ‘’ ??
Why do u think so when the response of the author of passage 1 would be negative and the response of author 2 ,as you said in your next sentence disagrees with passage one ?</p>
<p>^ what I meant was, of course Passag 2’s author would disagree (respond negatively) since the two take different stances</p>
<p>Yes,omg , the first author definitely viewed these manipulative lawyers with disdain.This means.As you said,the two writers took different stances,and the first one definitely had a negative view,this means that the second author will have a POSITIVE view ,i.e he will APPROVE this practice :)</p>
<p>Another thing ,we agreed that the answer to the comparison of tones of the 2 passages is ''derisive (the first one) ,laudatory (the second one) .If the tone of the second passage is laudatory,then author of passage two has a POSITIVE,APPROVING view :)</p>
<p>Yes I know the “derisive” and “laudatory”, and I get what u mean by “positive” now. First i thought you meant positive as in AGREE with passage 1 lol my bad^^ HOWEVER! lol “rights” is not the only “positive” choice. “conscientious lawyers will not do so” (or sumthing like that) is also a positive choice.</p>
<p>Yep,I dont insist on this answer being correct ;)</p>
<p>SO ,here are our ‘‘disputatious’’ questions</p>
<p>Ocean scientists passage -‘‘frustration vs curiosity’’
Father painter - ‘‘peaceful’’ vs ‘‘comforting’’’
Black expatriates - ‘‘youthful appearance vs theatrical flair’’</p>
<p>isnt it supposed to be 38 or 26?</p>
<p>Sorry ,it is my fault,The answer is 38 The area if the two shaded circles.If the common area was 12 , the total area is (25-12) + (25-12 ) + 12 = 13 + 13 + 12 = 38 
It cant be 26</p>
<p>A union B = A + B - (A intersect B)</p>
<p>area of shaded = 25 + 25 - 12 = 38</p>
<p>You guys are confusing the tone of the last paragraph with the tone of the whole passage…</p>
<p>The question was asking about the author’s tone in the last sentence/paragraph and you cannot use it to generalise to the whole passage’s meaning.</p>
<p>The correct interpretation of the two passages should be the following:</p>
<p>The first passage thinks that lawyers nowadays are relying more on other tools besides logic and he is against such practices.</p>
<p>The second passage on the other hand believes that lawyers possess the ability to verbalise facts more coherently and persuasively than the clients themselves. The author believes that such a skill is what makes lawyers outstanding. In the last paragraph he adopts such a laudatory tone in describing this remarkable trait of lawyers.</p>
<p>conscientious lawyers will not do so should be the correct answer.</p>
<p>Peaceful is correct because the author doesn’t describe the state as comforting, instead it is just a state of tranquility that the author describes when he watches his father paint.</p>
<p>on a side note, it’s absurd to say peaceful and comforting have the same meaning, they have SIMILAR meanings, but certainly different.</p>