by tommywallach Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:32 pm
Hey Khaleesi (did you watch the new season last night?!),
So on a big general question like this, it can sometimes be helpful to focus on the forest, rather than the trees. In other words, everything you need is captured in the thesis (in the first paragraph), though of course you will have read the whole thing, so you have all that information in your head. But let's look at the centerpiece of the first paragraph:
"This distinction reflects a difference in the visions of law that prevail in the two countries."
(A) Based on the one sentence I quoted, this could still be the answer. However, when you read the whole thing, you see that the passage only discusses the differences between the systems. This is also made clear in the first sentence of the first paragraph, which says that all similarities are "superficial."
(B) This is actually way off. The passage never attempts to re-evaluate (when were they evaluated the first time) the two systems. There are indeed examples, but the examples are used to describe these two systems, not to evaluate them in any way. (Evaluate means "Form an idea of the value of something" -- we aren't attempting to put a value on these systems).
(C) CORRECT. Everything in the passage is about the contrast between the systems.
(D) This is too broad. We're not trying to discuss the development of legal reasoning in general. If we were, there would be some information on the consequences of these systems, or other places they'd been applied.
(E) is wrong for the same reason as (A), but even more so!
Hope that helps!
-t