these are all questions that require some sort of action afterwards. Can we really blame Alcala for opening the trunk when law enforcement was right there

1- Identify (2) interesting ideas or arguments that Solan and Tiersma provided in the chapter to support their belief that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision. (3 sentences)
2- Give your opinion after reading the chapter. Were you convinced by any or all of Solan and Tiersma’s arguments? Explain your response. (3 sentences)
Also write a review for these two statements number them 1 and 2
1- In the reading, they heavily talked about indirect directives, and how they played a large role in this case. The driver of the vehicle was asked “Does the trunk open?” and when he replied “Yes” he got the key, and opened the trunk. This only being because that is what he thought was required of him in that situation. In the reading it also mentioned that judges should examine the totality of the surrounding circumstances. They go on to mention that age, education, intelligence etc. should be examined as a way to determine whether or not the suspect at hand was able to make an informed decision. I believe this should have been taken into account, and led to the Supreme Court making the wrong decision. My opinion after reading Solan and Tiersma’s arguments is that they were correct, and the Supreme Court made a poor choice. I say this because there were indeed indirect speech acts at play during the traffic stop. By wording his request in an ambiguous manner, he intended on eliciting a certain response.
2- he first interesting idea that I came across was giving indirect orders or commands. As mentioned in the reading, we do this in our everyday lives. “can you pass the salt?”” “”what is the weather like?””