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

Hi!

The answer to that would be option A, a narrative describing what a person learned.

Explanation:

This passage is written in first person and it's veru personal. It starts by the author commenting on an expression he heard and the passage evolves to him finding out the meaning of that expression and him analysing and pondering on it. Although the author does present a valid inference which could lead us to think the answer might be option B, the main topic presented at the beginning of the paragraph is a narrative describing what a person learned, so therefore, this is the answer.

swjdwnb xe xh s hbw hwshjwhjwbhuwvvgw gw ggwgx gwxyw bw gwvwhg wgw g wgwuowwh gww hjw ywbdubwhsqgsw sghw hwbsuwhsioqhusbjw sjw sbw sgwvysbwhj wb w hjw hw b whsbwhsnjw sbw shwbjsqm sbw hsbqhmbsjmwqshjqwbhwwand gthat the answer to the qusebde dhe dhebdh edh   hw dhwbjdnwkjd nw dnw nwns wnj nw hw dwdedeeddwcdw