When a court of appeals reviews a case, which of the following may its judges not do?

a. review the original record.

b. ask for new facts to be presented.

c. consider the arguments for each side.

d. decide whether the lower court decision was constitutional.

    I think it's B because a they have to review the original record since it is their job to decide whether the lower court decision was constitutional. And to do their job they also have to consider the arguements for each side. On a appeal no new facts are presented (fun fact). Frankly it's just my opinion, but B seems the most logical.

Explanation:

The higher court cannot ask for new facts to be considered, but the higher court can admit such new facts should they be presented. All other considerations listed are the responsibility of the higher court.

The new facts choice is true in Canada. I think it might be questionable in the United States.

can you post options so i can ?

d.prevent the spread of communism outside of eastern europe.