Question

Consider this passage: "When I first heard the expression 'preponderance of evidence' I thought that it meant some maybe 80% if I had to quantify it. I learned the legal term 'preponderance of evidence' means more than 'reasonable suspicion,' 'reason to believe,' and 'substantial evidence.' But then I learned that 'preponderance of evidence' meant anything more than 50/50. Which was what, better than a coin flip? Certainly not the same as 'clear and convincing' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' I discovered. What do you think? Should anything more than 50/50 enough to use the word 'preponderance'?" The previous passage is best described as ________.

a. a narrative describing what a person learned
b. a valid inference
c. a fallacious argument masquerading as warranted
d. a blatant misinterpretation the legal terminology

Answer 1

d. a blatant misinterpretation the legal terminology

Step-by-step explanation:

Knowledge, lıke every other thıng ıs not fıxated on our braın but later learned through acquısıtıon of ınformatıon or experience. The previous passage shows that, the author's knowledge of the word- preponderance which was used in legal field was greatly misinterpreted.

He had the impression that is was something else while at the end of the whole research, he got to know that it means another thing entirely. Just liek the word- My learned collegues is a form of salutation in the legal field but might mean another thing to anyone not in the legal field.