ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1706|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

丁丁倒数 80#

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2012-7-18 23:14:03 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Attorneys for a criminal defendant charged that the government, in a coverup, had destroyed evidence that would have supported the defendant  in a case. The government replied that there is no evidence that would even tend to support the defendant in the case.

Which one of the following is the most accurate evaluation of the government's reply?

A. It leaves open the question of whether the gov had destroyed such evidence.
E. If true, it effectively disproves the charge made on behalf of the defendant.

One of the choices is the OA and the other seems confusing to me. Which one would you guys choose? How to eliminate the other?
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2012-7-22 18:18:06 | 只看该作者
这个答案显然是A嘛。。。
这个政府是在玩文字游戏嘛。他说的是 there IS no evidence that ...,估计他就不敢说there HAS NEVER BEEN evidence that ...
因为如果之前有evidence被毁掉了的话,那there确实is no eveidence,但这可能是因为确实从来没有过evidence,也可能是因为政府把evidence毁掉了,所以现在there is no evidence了,所以这么回答仍然是leave the question open的。而这样解释的话E也肯定就不对了。
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2012-7-22 23:33:09 | 只看该作者


原来是时态 囧。。。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

所属分类: 法学院申请

近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-23 21:32
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部