Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
Answer:
C. spending time with family is important, and using technology in excess can affect relationships.
Explanation:
got it right on the test
Answer:
The answer is option A:
Alvarez grappled with the issue of writing a novel about a dangerous subject.
As we can see, she is clearly in conflict between doing the right thing for the world by writing about a serious subject, and doing the right thing for her family by not mentioning something that frightens them. Therefore, the best option to answer the question is the first one: Alvarez grappled with the issue of writing a novel about a dangerous subject.
Answers with Explanations:
1. Ned said, <em>"I just love working in the hot sun. When can we do it again?"</em>
Ned exclaimed the opposite of what he's actually feeling because, in reality, <em>he doesn't want to work under the hot sun.</em> By asking the question<em> "When can we do it again?,"</em> actually means that<u> he is not looking forward to another day to working in the hot sun.</u>
2. Billy Fisher was a minor character and remained one as an adult.
This statement actually meant that <em>Billy Fisher's importance in the story only remained as a minor one </em>and <u>he never progressed</u> until the he grew older into an adult.
3. Kara read that Tom Sawyer tricked the boys. What a good friend!" she remarked.
Kara actually meant that Tom Sawyer's tricking the boys was a <u>mischievous thing to do.</u> Thus, she stated in verbal irony that he was a <em>"good friend" </em>when, in fact, what he did wasn't good.
4. His friends none the wiser, Tom surveyed the results of his whitewashing.
Tom actually didn't do the whitewashing, it was Ben and the his other friends whom he lured into whitewashing as he told them it was an enjoyable thing to do. Being given the chance to do the whitewashing, Tom's friends gave him a prize in return.
Answer:
Topic sentences are followed by supporting details.
Explanation:
When writing a report, the student can adopt different organizational structures that match more with the text he will write. However, one of the most efficient structures for writing a report is the use of topical phrases followed by supporting details.
This structure is efficient, because it allows the author to establish an argument or an essential statement for the report, with several supporting phrases that prove that the statement or argument is true, in addition to enriching the text and showing that the author has researched and prepared to write it.
