Question

read the passage. from testimony of hon. sandra day oconnor, nominated to be associate justice of the u.s. supreme court if confirmed, i face an awesome responsibility ahead. so, too, does this committee face a heavy responsibility with respect to my nomination. i hope to be as helpful to you as possible in responding to your questions on my background and my beliefs and my views. there is, however, a limitation on my responses which i am compelled to recognize. i do not believe that as a nominee i can tell you how i might vote on a particular issue which may come before the court, or endorse or criticize specific supreme court decisions presenting issues which may well come before the court again. to do so would mean that i have prejudged the matter or have morally committed myself to a certain position. such a statement by me as to how i might resolve a particular issue or what i might do in a future court action might make it necessary for me to disqualify myself on the matter. this would result in my inability to do my sworn duty; namely, to decide cases that come before the court. finally, neither you nor i know today the precise way in which any issue will present itself in the future, or what the facts or arguments may be at that time, or how the statute being interpreted may read. until those crucial factors become known, i suggest that none of us really know how we would resolve any particular issue. (from testimony of hon. sandra day oconnor, nominated to be associate justice of the u.s. supreme court by sandra day oconnor, september 9, 1981.) select two techniques oconnor uses to support her choice not to speak about potential court decisions. 1. she appeals to the listeners sense of logic by arguing that peoples minds change depending on the context. 2. she appeals to the listeners sense of empathy by explaining that they also cannot know their future decisions. 3. she appeals to the listeners sense of pity by explaining how stressful it is to have to think about future cases. 4. she appeals to the listeners sense of ethics by arguing that it is morally wrong to commit to a decision in advance. 5. she appeals to the listeners sense of self - interest by explaining that future cases will be complicated if she answers.

Explanation:

1. In the passage, O'Connor argues that people's minds change depending on context, which is an appeal to logic to explain why she can't pre - judge cases.
2. She also claims that it is morally wrong to commit to a decision in advance, which is an appeal to ethics. She doesn't appeal to empathy, pity, or self - interest in the given text.

Answer:

1. She appeals to the listeners' sense of logic by arguing that people's minds change depending on the context.
2. She appeals to the listeners' sense of ethics by arguing that it is morally wrong to commit to a decision in advance.