Not supported, because the ruling did not “directly contravene” the language of the reforms. The reforms did not define “ownership.” So the court’s ruling did not contradict any explicit definition of “ownership.” Although the author thinks the court should have interpreted “ownership” differently, this doesn’t imply that the court’s ruling contradicted the language of the reforms.

Not supported, because courts are authorized to rule on the definition of property rights. The author never suggests that provincial courts are not allowed to make rulings on the definitions of words like “ownership.”

Not supported, because the documentary evidence issue discussed in P2 is not related to the 1984 case.

Not supported, because we have no idea from the passage whether politicians and conservative interests influenced the court’s ruling. Don’t interpret “excessively conservative in its assessment of current law” as related to conservative politicians or interests.

This is the most supported answer. The author thinks the court’s ruling was too conservative in its assessment of current law, so it’s fair to say that the court “misconstrued” the constitutional reform’s relation to existing law. In addition, there’s support for the claim that the court understood the intent of the constitutional reforms, because the court did at least attempt to grant “ownership” to the aboriginal group.