If you are a lawyer presenting a case to an appellate court, which of the following questions would you expect the judges to ask during oral arguments? (Select all that apply.) Why do you believe the lower court made an error in the decision? What are the legal principles of the original case that led to the lower court’s decision? Why do you believe the lower court’s error was harmful enough to make a difference? What are the facts of the original case that led to the lower court’s decision?

You would expect them to ask oral arguments such as the place, the location, and the suspect in question. We should accept that the lower court made an error if there is a lawyer president with evidence. The lower court could be harmful if they have reached a decision. The facts of the original case can lead to the court's final jurisdiction.

Explanation:

pepin the short[a] (german: pippin der kurze, french: pépin le bref, c. 714 – 24 september 768) was the king of the franks from 751 until his death. he was the first of the carolingians to become king.[b][2]

the younger son of the frankish prince charles martel and his wife rotrude, pepin's upbringing was distinguished by the ecclesiastical education he had received from the monks of st. denis. succeeding his father as the mayor of the palace in 741, pepin reigned over francia jointly with his elder brother carloman. pepin ruled in neustria, burgundy, and provence, while his brother carloman established himself in austrasia, alemannia and thuringia. the brothers were active in suppressing revolts led by the bavarians, aquitanians, saxons, and the alemanni in the early years of their reign. in 743, they ended the frankish interregnum by choosing childeric iii, who was to be the last merovingian monarch, as figurehead king of the franks.

the correct answer is: the fact that the anti-federalist papers were considered poorly written.