4
2007-07-19 15:41:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by ruth4526 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
3
2007-07-19 15:46:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
4. dont allow the context of the sentence to mislead you. it is neutral because netta and jim neither argue nor share their views nor split their decisions on the issue. in 4 they stay within there own views and therefor stay neutral because an opinion has not been voiced.
hope that makes sense
in addition... pretend youre in a room with two others who are argueing over something rediculous and you say to yourself, "wow, i'm staying out of this one"... you've put yourself outside the arguement allowing to see both sides and stay neutral not leaning to one side or the other.
2007-07-19 15:45:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Standing in Line 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
4. Netta and jim refused to discuss the issue of free trade.
they had no argumant
2007-07-19 15:42:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sentence #2 is neutral. All of the others could be considered to have emotional content based on the words "argued", "sharply split" and "refused".
2007-07-19 15:43:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by treebird 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
the one that is NOT neutral is #3. it's fine to argue over different views, or to have different views, and to not discuss them, but it's not neutral to be sharply split & be in a fight because of different views.
2007-07-19 15:48:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by !ts _a_ type 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
3 is not neutral. They are possessing the quality of being sharply split.
2007-07-19 15:45:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by mj 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
2 seems the most neutral to me,
2007-07-19 15:42:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by nickipettis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
#4 is wrong just took the test.
2015-12-06 17:01:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Yves 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
1....
2007-07-23 15:41:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by bored at work 3
·
0⤊
0⤋