Explanation

Thanks for your question @danieldepasquale In the final paragraph, the author touches on the shortcomings of each country's system. He says of the English system that it "has led to wooden interpretations of statutes and an unwillingness to develop the common law though judicial activism."

Can you elaborate? That answer doesn't really help at all.

@Maroun, Happy to help. This question is essentially asking us to figure out when a substantive interpretation of a legal rule could be warranted in England. In looking back to the passage's commentary on the formal reasoning that serves as the foundation of the English legal system, we find that there is the possibility for a potential exception to formal reasoning's prohibition on substantive interpretation. In the passage, the author says that as soon as a legal rule "has been clearly established" and "the legality of the rule is not in question," judges will not even consider substantive arguments (lines 40-46). However, if the legal rule hasn't been very clearly established or the legality of the rule is in question, this could open the door for the judge to make substantive interpretations of the law. In looking for one or both of these circumstances in our answer choices, (C) gives us both said circumstances. If the legality of the rule is in question and the rule hasn't been established because of the fact that its enforcement is open to judicial interpretation, then perhaps even an English judge would actually make substantive interpretations of the law. Thus, (C) is the correct answer choice for this question. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!