Can anyone give me a complete grammar analysis of this sentence.
But in the court of law, ladies and gentlmen, it is not enough to offer a coherent and sensible account. (caluse, phrase, subject, verb, Object ect.)
It is interesting to me that you asked for an analysis of syntax instead of grammar.
In syntax, you are using direct address in an informative style to tell the jury from a legal perspective the necessity of analysis over presentation and pomp.
Your prose may be too advanced for a layman to comprehend such a basic point:
"it is not enough to offer a coherent and sensible account" would be understood by any attorney versed in esoteric legal terminology (as I am), but it would not be grasped in what is obviously an opening or closing argument by a jury of peers...
You do a fabulous job explaining the components of this transition sentence in complete and simplistic detail.
Obviously, you must follow this sentence with a clarification that "Although my opposing counsel used visually thrilling presentations and compelling testimonial evidence, that testimony cannot be sufficient to condemn a man for the crime of X. The spirit and nature of your most sacred duty as the arbitors of truth requires more than the acceptance of what could possibly be a very compelling actor, and must require that you see into the fatal weakness behind the prosecuting attorney's case; that there is not enough forensic or credible evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
Note how I also used the advance prose expected of an attorney, but, at the same time, I said it in a way that clarified my meaning as I spoke.
If you want an analysis of grammar instead of syntax--let me know.
|link||edited Nov 03 '13 at 22:13 Aaron Prejean Expert|
Hero of the day
Person voted on the most questions.