Please help

@Maroun, Happy to help. This question is asking us to identify a statement about substantive reasons that's true. We need to review the second paragraph of the passage, as that's where the author describes substantive reasons. In the beginning of the second paragraph, the author says in lines 15-16 that substantive reasons are found both in the law and outside the law. Also, the author provides an example of substantive reasoning and in her description of this example, she says that although a statute prohibiting bringing cars into a public park might not have any types of rationales written into the law, a judge could still consult the substantive purpose of the law when making a decision on the matter (lines 19-25). From this, we can make the conclusion that a substantive reason can be either written into law or can exert an external influence on the law, which is exactly what (A) states ((A) states, "They may be written into laws, but they may also exert an external influence on the law"). As a result, (A) is the correct answer. Now, let's take a look at the other ones. (B) says, "They must be explicitly written into the law in order to be relevant to the application of the law." (B) is not supported by the passage because the author tells us that substantive reasons do not need to be explicitly written into law when she describes substantive reasons that are outside the law as well as when she provides the example of substantive reasoning in the second paragraph. Thus, we can get rid of (B). (C) says, "They are legal in nature and determine particular applications of most laws." Lines 4-5 tell us that substantive reasons are more common than formal reasons in the U.S., but other than that, we do not know how frequently the application of a particular law is determined by substantive reasons. It's certainly too strong to say that substantive laws determine the application of most laws, especially when (C) doesn't say most laws within the U.S., so as a result we can get rid of (C). (D) says, "They often provide judges with specific rationales for disregarding the laws of the land." Even though substantive reasons have the capacity to impact some judges' reasoning, the author of the passage never mentions that substantive reasons allow for a judge to completely disregard the laws of the land. You might be tempted by the 4th paragraph of the passage, but the author only says that the extreme interpretations are made by legal scholars, but are not necessarily made by judges (lines 49-51 of the passage). Additionally, even when the author of the passage says that the extreme version of substantive reasoning results in some statutory interpretations that are "so liberal that the texts of some statutes have been ignored altogether" (lines 57-59), the scholars in question are still interpreting laws; they're not completely ignoring the law and creating their own laws. As a result, we can get rid of (D). (E) says, "They are peripheral to the law, whereas formal reasons are central to the law." The problem with (E) is that the author never states that substantive reasons are peripheral to the law. Rather, the author says that substantive reasons can be written directly into the law and that they inform the content of a very large portion of the law, including statutes, constitutions, contracts, and verdicts. As a result, (E) doesn't have support, so it's an incorrect answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Could you please explain what answer choice E means with the phrase "Peripheral to the law?"