If is effective and persuasive for juror 11 to defend the right to hold unpopular opinions in America because it is implied that: He has little experience with international politics He is a refugee from a European country without such rights He knows less about America than the others He is not fluent in English

The question is asking why Juror 11's defense of the right to hold unpopular opinions in America is effective and persuasive. The options provided are:<br />1. He has little experience with international politics.<br />2. He is a refugee from a European country without such rights.<br />3. He knows less about America than the others.<br />4. He is not fluent in English.<br /><br />The most persuasive reason for Juror 11 to defend the right to hold unpopular opinions in America would be his personal experience as a refugee from a European country without such rights. This implies that he has firsthand experience of the lack of freedom in his home country and, therefore, he is more likely to value and defend the right to hold unpopular opinions in America. The other options do not provide a strong or persuasive reason for his defense of this right.