Passage 1:

Question

Cameras in the Courtroom
1
2
3
4
5
Even though cameras are everywhere these days, they are currently not allowed in many federal courtrooms. This includes the Supreme Court. Justice Elana Kagan has warned that if having cameras in the courtroom "came at the expense of the way the institution functioned. that would be a very bad bargain." Whether cameras should be in courtrooms is a long and ongoing debate.
In 1946, at the dawn of the broadcast era, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure banned photographs or broadcast media coverage of criminal trials in federal court.
Those who supported the ban argued that lawyers would play to the cameras by showing off. This behavior would disrupt the serious atmosphere of the courtroom. Ban supporters worried that defendants would get nervous and look untrustworthy. They feared that witnesses and jurors would be distracted. All these factors could deny the defendant a fair trial.
The Judicial Conference of the United States makes policy for federal courts. In 1972. it expanded the ban to apply to both crimInal and civil cases. But, in 1990, the Judicial Conference agreed to a limited test of the idea. It allowed electronic media to record federal civil proceedings in eight courtrooms for three vears. Supporters of the program argued that cameras would allow the public to see that justice was being served. In the end, the Judicial Conference decided that some participants may find cameras intimidating. It stood by the ban.
However, a second pilot study ran from 2011 to 2015. As a result, five federal courts now allow video cameras in limited instances in civil cases. Supporters of cameras in federal courtrooms keep pushing to expand that number. Since 2005, members of Congress have introduced at least nine "Sunshine in the Courtroom" bills. The latest discretion to permit electronic media coverage while safeguarding due process and privacy.
It is unclear where the majority of federal judges stand on cameras in the courtroom.
The Congressional Research Service notes in a 2019 report that as a group, federal judges take control of the electronic media and post video online. Many state courts, most of which allow cameras in the courtroom in some form, take this approach. Lower federal courts do as well. In addition, transcripts and audio often may be purchased through PACER. This is the online records system for federal courts. These developments have greatly expanded public access to federal court proceedings.

(Paragraph TWO!)

Passage 2:
Challenging the Status Quo
Often people can get stuck in old ways of thinking. People find comfort in routine and familiarity. However, that type of thinking can lead people into a closed loop where they cannot move forward. They say, "We do it this way because this is the way it has\always been done." This logic, however, shuts one off to the possibilities of change, or the idea that there might be a better way of functioning.
Everyone should be open to change because change itself is inevitable.
In Latin, the phrase "status quo" translates to "the existing state." In other words, the status quo is how conditions currently are. Usually, the phrase is used in relation to a potential change. For instance, in 1972, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm---the first female African American presidential candidate--said. "I ran for the presidency, despite hopeless odds, to demonstrate the sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo." Chisholm felt that the status quo needed to be challenged and that change was necessary.
This is not to say that old ways of operating are automatically bad. For instance, an ongoing debate concerns whether or not it is better to read a physical book or to use an e-reader. One study at West Chester University in Pennsylvania found that reading a book leads to better comprehension.
Sometimes, the old is preferable to the new.
However, this relatively minor example pales in comparison to the countless times the status quo was not preferable. Think of the wondrous technological advances that are improvements over the past. These include cars, airplanes, smart phones, and the internet. Now consider societal change. The founding fathers knew that change was inevitable. They therefore allowed for amendments to be made to the U.S. Constitution. Laws themselves are subiect to change in order to address issues that affect a dynamic world. As Justice Thurgood Marshall explained in a 1974 opinion. "The process of democracy is one of change. Our laws are not frozen into immutable form, they are constantly in the process of revision in response to the needs of a changing society."
When people are faced with whether to change the status quo, it may be worthwhile to stop and study the issue. Is the old way of acting truly better, or is it simply habit that prevents change? If habit alone is preventing change, then it might be time to challenge the status quo.

(QUESTIONS!)

How does the authors' use of language in paragraph 2 of the article "Cameras in the Courtroom" and paragraph 1 of the article "Challenging the Status Quo" convey DIFFERENT tones?
*
The phrase "supported the ban" in "Cameras in the Courtroom" expresses a pleased tone, while the phrase "stuck in old ways" in "Challenging the Status Quo" contributes to a frustrated tone.

The phrase "defendants would get nervous" in "Cameras in the Courtoom" expresses a concerned tone, while the phrase "a closed loop" in "Challenging the Status Quo" indicates an explanatory tone.

The phrase "jurors would be distracted" in "Cameras in the Courtroom" contributes to a scornful tone, while the phrase "Everyone should be" in "Challenging the Status Quo" suggests an arrogant tone.

The phrase "All these factors" in "Cameras in the Courtroom" develops an analytical tone, while the phrase "better way of functioning" in "Challengin the Status Quo" builds a hopeful tone.

Answer 1

The answer that best captures the different tones conveyed by the authors' language in paragraph 2 of "Cameras in the Courtroom" and paragraph 1 of "Challenging the Status Quo" is:

The phrase "All these factors" in "Cameras in the Courtroom" develops an analytical tone, while the phrase "better way of functioning" in "Challenging the Status Quo" builds a hopeful tone.

In "Cameras in the Courtroom," the language reflects a more analytical approach, as it discusses the various concerns and analyses regarding the presence of cameras in court. In contrast, "Challenging the Status Quo" adopts a hopeful tone, suggesting that change is possible and can lead to improved ways of functioning.