Hi LeslyLSATinLA!
Happy to address why answer choice (D) is incorrect.
To start, this question provides us with a specific line reference. When given specific references points, it's helpful to look at the context both before and after the line reference. In this question, we're asked about the "intellectual systems" mentioned in line 11. We can put this into the context of the preceding and subsequent sentences:
Without having witnessed these events, judges and juries must validate some stories as true and reject others as false. This procedure is rooted in objectivism, a philosophical approach that has supported most Western legal and intellectual systems for centuries. Objectivism holds that there is a single neutral description of each event that is unskewed by any particular point of view and that has a privileged position over all other accounts. The law’s quest for truth, therefore, consists of locating this objective description, the one that tells what really happened, as opposed to what those involved thought happened.
The correct answer choice, (A), states of these "intellectual systems" that "They have long assumed the possibility of a neutral depiction of events." The passage states that "objectivism" has supported the mentioned intellectual systems for centuries, and in the next sentence it defines objectivism as holding "that there is a single neutral description of each event." So answer choice (A) matches pretty squarely up with what is in the text around line 11.
Answer choice (D) states of the mentioned intellectual systems that "They accord a privileged position to the language of emotion and experience." Solely from looking at the sentences around the given line reference, there's no mention of the language of emotion and experience. Inasmuch as these are discussed much later in the passage, that gets one away from the context of the specific line reference given in the question. In addition, the substance of (D) also seems questionable--the mentioned intellectual systems were supported by objectivism, which, if anything, does
not give a privileged position to the language of emotion and experience but rather to a neutral understanding of events.
