#26

[crispycrispr]

Hi,

I was originally choosing between (D) and (A), and chose (D), and can now see why it's wrong (international law/experience in and of itself isn't an unacceptable means, but its misuse is). However, I'm still hesitant about the answer choice (A) for the same reasons I didn't choose it at first--the language of "must be" seems way too strong for what the passage has said. Can someone explain why this absolute-ness is acceptable here?

Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

crispy,

I'd argue that the "tempering" discussed in answer choice (A) is precisely not an extreme view, so that something "must be tempered" is a pretty modest statement. Consider what the scholars want to avoid (lines 34-39). The scholars are worried that judges may let foreign law influence South African law without any consideration of how circumstances differ between those foreign places and South Africa. Allowing such unthinking foreign influence would be extreme. Anything which considers, even a little bit, the difference in circumstances would "temper" that influence with a recognition of the potential difference in circumstances. So "tempering" the extreme position leads to a more modest position - at least considering the circumstances. Thus, to say that judges must temper their reliance on foreign law is saying they must NOT be extreme in their reliance on foreign influence. So answer choice (A) is saying something like "judges must not be extreme", which is, of course, to say that being extreme is bad! So I actually think that answer choice (A) is anything but an extreme answer choice, so that objection against it does not obtain.

Robert Carroll