by mornincounselor Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:08 am
I couldn't eliminate (D) but I didn't think the passage supported it.
That fourth paragraph says that "it would be absurd to suppose that wherever the meaning of a legal rule is unclear, there is a legal principle with a clear reasoning."
I don't think a correct implication of this is that wherever we have a unclear legal rule we can never have a principle which is more clearly defined. And, if we can atleast have one situation where a legal principle is more illluminating that a legal rule it seems this choice would be an incorrect comparison trap.
Furthermore, it seems (B) is supported, although not explictly by the author, I suppose.