PT 72, S3, Q19

Here is how I would diagram the problem: For the first sentence: FR -> P if not contrary to bmv (If there is a “first ruling” then “precedent” if not contrary to basic moral values) For the second sentence: No P and no contradicts wpo -> own legal views (If there is no precedent and no contradictions with widespread public opinion, then the judge can abide by their own legal views) The answer you chose conflicts with the latter sentence, because in that answer there is a contradiction with what most people believe, and yet we know from the second sentence that a judge may only abide by their own legal views if there is no contradiction with widespread public opinion. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have other questions.