Q20

[daytimeowl17]

Hi! I can certainly see how A is supported from line 13-16, but could someone explain why D is not supported? I did think that the word 'disregard' is quite strong, but from the park example I thought that US judges' ruling of veterans group not being guilty, based on substantive reasons, disregarded the explicitly stated law of 'no vehicles in park.' Or should I rather read it as disregarding only the literal meanings of the law, and not the law itself? I'd appreciate any insight! Thank you!

[maryadkins]

Thank you for your question! Your thinking on A is correct.

As for D, you're also right on in your questioning. D is extreme. Judges following substantive reasoning are not discarding the laws of the land. They are interpreting the laws differently but that doesn't mean discarding.

As for the others,

(B) is contradicted—the opposite of what we're told about substantive reasons.

(C) is a lot like B. Often they aren't legal in nature.

(E) may be tempting but they aren't so much peripheral (versus central) but they can be both part of law and outside of law, as the correct answer (A) notes.

Hope this helps!

[daytimeowl17]

I see! I made a huge jump from 'having different interpretations' to 'disregarding the laws themselves'. Thanks for your help!