1. I have reviewed the rule of three for writing an EQ.
2. a. doesn't meet the rule of three because it can answered with a list.
b. meets the rule of three because it takes depth and is ambiguous.
c. meets the rule of three because it has great wording and has depth.
d. doesn't meet the rule of three because it can answered with a list.
3. How can a negligence lawyer ensure a winning case for his/her client?
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Monday, November 3, 2014
Blog 9: Lesson 1 Reflection
1. I am most proud of how well I was getting across to the audience and how they felt very engaged because that is something that I don't usually notice in previous presentations.
2. I would give myself a P. The reason why I believe that I deserve a P was because I was engaging and explained my topic thoroughly but it did not seem to go above expectations.
3. What really worked for me was the everyday life examples; that really helped me get the message across a lot better.
4. I might want to explain certain things a bit more I fell as if I rushed through some things without knowing if everyone had clarity on it.
Extra November Blog
I still have yet to acquire a mentor but I have a pending offer from A law Firm of Michael D. Payne in West Covina.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)