by LizaK873 Sat Sep 14, 2024 9:05 am
Correct answer is simpler than what everyone discussed.
My process of elimination. Short and long explanations.
To clarify before hand, I summarize the entire passage simply as: 'too exclusive' (old law) --> 'too lenient' (Bentham) --> mostly lenient unless the exclusion is reasonable (current law)
---B---
Short: to prove B true, paragraph needs to say [18th century was rigid more than Bentham's, and current law].
It does by saying
1. entire 18th and part of 19th was rigid
2. Bentham's was too lenient
3. current law is somewhat lenient
Longer:
- Where everyone's confusion starts: Bentham's interest, as in, to HIM as a person, started in 18th century
- However, first paragraph actually says "too exclusive until 19th century".
- I mean, the last sentence of the first paragraph literally says "even in 19th century, important evidence was excluded".
- This implies, that Bentham's inspirations did start in 18th century, but had no effect until after 19th century.
- Last paragraph ALSO states, Bentham's lenient stuff wasn't considered until after his death. Which is probably also after 19th century, because passage guarantees that at least SOME portion of 19th century was max rigid.
- So, entire 18th century was absolutely rigid - Bentham had no influence. He only potentially had influence 19th century or later.
Wrong answers:
---A---
This literally means common-law rules of evidence doesn't exist anymore. This isn't true. It coexists with modern principles.
---C---
Short: Passage has no example of a NEW or ORIGINAL current law, completely innovated on its own, without any grounds on common law.
Longer explanation:
- This answer is correct IF: there is at least one example of a current law that does not derive from common-law.
- To reply aradunakhor's comment: cherry-picking from the past is not an example of an original rule, that is not from common-law.
- Common-law of "you can't sneeze" is abandoned --> current law says you can sneeze. This is not a new law. It is not a proof of 'no derivation', rather, just elimination or exclusion.
- Current law that not derived (only way to make C the answer): you can't blink --> has nothing to do with you can't sneeze.
- The paragraph has no example of a completely new, irrelevant law that common-law hasn't covered or thought about.
---D---
- The second sentence says "common-law regarding evidence had rules that are now abandoned' --> evidence law existed back then too.
- The second sentence of 2nd paragraph also says evidence law existed (but that it was too exclusive).
---E---
- First sentence says "something was finished by late eighteenth century".
- You cannot go from the above, to mean "nothing existed before eighteenth century".
- EG) By 5pm, car was fixed --> you cannot say car was never being fixed before 4pm.
- This answer choice is basically saying "well car wasn't fixed by 5pm, so nobody started to fix it before 5pm".