Sentences 7, Quotations

10 Questions

Settings
Please wait...
Sentence Quizzes & Trivia

Choose the letter that represents the best rewrite of each sentence so that the quotations are correct.


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    Ralph Waldo Emerson once said “Money often costs too much”.
    • A. 

      Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Money often costs too much”.

    • B. 

      Ralph Waldo Emerson once said “Money often costs too much.”

    • C. 

      Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Money often costs too much.”.

    • D. 

      Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Money often costs too much.”

  • 2. 
    The teaching assistant said “No one will ever believe that Maurice said, “Yo, Prof!” in Torts class.”
    • A. 

      The teaching assistant said, “No one will ever believe that Maurice said, “Yo, Prof!” in Torts class.”

    • B. 

      The teaching assistant said “No one will ever believe that Maurice said, ‘Yo, Prof!’ in Torts class.”

    • C. 

      The teaching assistant said, “No one will ever believe that Maurice said, ‘Yo, Prof!’ in Torts class.”

  • 3. 
    In Sawyer v. Sandstrom, 615 F.2d 311, 317 (5th Cir. 1980), the court held that even when the government has a ‘legitimate and substantial’ purpose in restricting speech, it may not do so if what is intended to be restricted can be ‘more narrowly achieved’ by other means.
    • A. 

      In Sawyer v. Sandstrom, 615 F.2d 311, 317 (5th Cir. 1980), the court held that even when the government has a “legitimate and substantial” purpose in restricting speech, it may not do so if what is intended to be restricted can be “more narrowly achieved” by other means.

    • B. 

      In Sawyer v. Sandstrom, 615 F.2d 311, 317 (5th Cir. 1980), the court held that even when the government has a legitimate and substantial purpose in restricting speech, it may not do so if what is intended to be restricted can be more narrowly achieved by other means.

    • C. 

      In Sawyer v. Sandstrom, 615 F.2d 311, 317 (5th Cir. 1980), the court held that even when the government has a ‘legitimate and substantial’ purpose in restricting speech, it may not do so if what is intended to be restricted can be “more narrowly achieved” by other means.

  • 4. 
    “No two cases are alike;” the professor explained that there are always distinctions, even if those distinctions are minor.
    • A. 

      “No two cases are alike,” the professor explained that, there are always distinctions, even if those distinctions are minor.

    • B. 

      “No two cases are alike” the professor explained that there are always distinctions, even if those distinctions are minor.

    • C. 

      “No two cases are alike”; the professor explained that there are always distinctions, even if those distinctions are minor.

  • 5. 
    The holding of the case is highlighted;  “We therefore hold that [material omitted] the City violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
    • A. 

      The holding of the case is highlighted; We therefore hold that “[material omitted] the City violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

    • B. 

      The holding of the case is highlighted; “We therefore hold that [material omitted] the City violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

    • C. 

      The holding of the case is highlighted; “We therefore hold that … the City violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

    • D. 

      The holding of the case is highlighted; “We therefore hold” that [material omitted] the City “violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

  • 6. 
    Paraphrase the following sentence: The court held that, “[P]er se bans on expressive conduct [as applied by a community] are inherently suspect, and do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.” 
    • A. 

      The court held that [P]er se bans on expressive conduct [as applied by a community] are inherently suspect, and do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

    • B. 

      Per se bans on “expressive conduct [as applied by a community]” are inherently suspect, and “do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

    • C. 

      The court held that a community’s per se bans on expressive conduct are inherently suspect and “do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

    • D. 

      The court held that if a community imposed a per se ban on expressive conduct, that ban was suspect and likely unconstitutional.

  • 7. 
    “[I]t is the Government’s obligation to ensure that speech rights are curtailed only if they cannot be more narrowly achieved by another mechanism such that the goal of the government is achieved.”  
    • A. 

      A government may restrict speech only if the restriction is narrowly tailored to meet the government’s goals.

    • B. 

      It is the Government’s obligation to ensure that speech rights are curtailed “only if they cannot be more narrowly achieved” by another mechanism “such that the goal of the government is achieved.”

    • C. 

      The Government is obliged to ensure that speech rights are curtailed “only if they cannot be more narrowly achieved by another mechanism such that the goal of the government is achieved.”

  • 8. 
    “It is within a court’s discretion to interpret a statute in such a way that any constraint or limitation imposed therein is reasonably ascertained based on the precise wording of the statute.”
    • A. 

      According to precedent, it is within a court’s discretion to interpret a statute “in such a way that any constraint or limitation imposed therein is reasonably ascertained based on the precise wording of the statute.”

    • B. 

      A court has the power to interpret a statute, but its interpretation must be based on the wording within the statute.

    • C. 

      Correct.

  • 9. 
    In Warden v. Hayden, the Supreme Court commented “Searches and seizures may be “unreasonable” within the Fourth Amendment even though the Government asserts a superior property interest at common law.” 
    • A. 

      In Warden v. Hayden, the Supreme Court commented 'Searches and seizures may be “unreasonable” within the Fourth Amendment even though the Government asserts a superior property interest at common law.'

    • B. 

      In Warden v. Hayden, the Supreme Court commented, “Searches and seizures may be 'unreasonable' within the Fourth Amendment even though the Government asserts a superior property interest at common law.”

    • C. 

      In Warden v. Hayden, the Supreme Court commented “Searches and seizures may be 'unreasonable' within the Fourth Amendment even though the Government asserts a superior property interest at common law.”

  • 10. 
    The Court determined that the Plaintiff had a cause of action for a violation of his privacy.  It noted “One who desires to live a life of partial seclusion has a right to choose the times, places, and manner in which and at which he will submit himself to the public gaze.”
    • A. 

      The Court determined that the Plaintiff had a cause of action for a violation of his privacy. It noted, “One who desires to live a life of partial seclusion has a right to choose the times, places, and manner in which and at which he will submit himself to the public gaze.”

    • B. 

      The Court determined that the Plaintiff had a cause of action for a violation of his privacy. It noted 'One who desires to live a life of partial seclusion has a right to choose the times, places, and manner in which and at which he will submit himself to the public gaze.'

    • C. 

      The Court determined that the Plaintiff had a cause of action for a violation of his privacy. It noted, 'One who desires to live a life of partial seclusion has a right to choose the times, places, and manner in which and at which he will submit himself to the public gaze.'