Too narrow. The citizens’ opposition to law is merely one of the problems described in the passage (in P3). But there are other problems, too.

Although the author brings up the potential for citizens to challenge administrative decisions, the author doesn’t suggest that lawyers, judges, and citizens “must learn to challenge parliamentary decisions.” The author’s point isn’t about the need to challenge decisions; it’s about the various problems the new legal system will face.

This is too narrow. The main point should capture the problems presented by the passage. The author’s point isn’t merely to inform the reader that the new arbiter of laws in South Africa is the constitutional court.

This is the best answer. It’s the only one that isn’t too narrow and that doesn’t say anything unsupported. The lack of relevant legal precedents captures the point of P2. the public’s antagonistic relation to the law captures the point of P3. The move from parliament as final authority to a constitutional system captures P1.

Too narrow. Although the author mentions that South African courts will look to other countries to help interpret the constitution, and that the courts need to develop precedent that addresses the needs of South African citizens, this is only mentioned in P2. (E) ignores the problem of citizens’ opposition to law in P3.