please explain

@Ro13 To look for a substantive argument for the validity of a will without a signed witness, we are looking for circumstances where there may be an extenuating circumstance that would in the US potentially incline a judge to allow the witness requirement to be waived. A number of the answers (B, C, and D) either imply that there would be no extenuating circumstances or create even higher requirements, removing those from consideration. A goes in a different path, just saying the requirement doesn't stipulate the format, which is irrelevant and can be dismissed. E says that in an extenuating circumstance of medical emergency, a variance may be accepted in a substantive interpretation of the statute (that there can be a verbal, rather than formal, witness.) This shows a substantive interpretation and is the correct answer.

@Anita, can you please explain why (A) would be irrelevant? I was really stuck between (A) and (E), but my thinking was that the scenario outlined in (A) was still closer to substantive reasoning than in (E), because (A) had at least some basis (i.e. there was a requirement for a transcription that is loosely met), while in (E), the judge seems to come out of left field and just decide that it is OK for a verbal witness to supplant the need for a written witness altogether. I settled on (A) because I feared that (E) was overreaching / too strong. Thanks!