pavan2185 wrote:
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt and Waltson, just
argued for justice for his clients; according to his closest colleagues, he was never deeply driven to
win justice for them.
A.just argued for justice for his clients
B.argued just for justice for his clients
C.argued just for his clients' justice
D.argued for only justice for his clients
E.argued for just his clients' justice
argued for justice for his clients; according to his closest colleagues, he was never deeply driven to
win justice for them.
A.just argued for justice for his clients
B.argued just for justice for his clients
C.argued just for his clients' justice
D.argued for only justice for his clients
E.argued for just his clients' justice
Good one.
It is one of those questions where you are supposed to read the entire sentence VERY carefully and get the gist of it.
The latter part of the sentence is a clause separated by a semi colon, implying that it is closely related to the previous clause.
The latter part says that Saul was never deeply driven to win justice for his clients. What we get from this clause is that the we must get something about Saul that gives us evidence for the second clause to be true.
ONLY A does this. A says that Saul only argued for justice for his clients. He didn't do anything that could have been done to win justice for his clients.
Hope this helps.
Regards.
P.S.: Please don't forget to mention the source of the questions.