Whether the problematic rules are used intermittently or continuously, there are still negative aspects of the traditional rule. The fact a problem might occur intermittently does not suggest the problem is minor or does not need to be fixed.

Attempts to use the other code to confuse opponents does not suggest these attempts are successful or that they would lead to the same debates and decline in public confidence that the traditional rules lead to.

This undermines the assumption that avoiding the problem of the traditional code requires adopting the alternate one. (C) presents an alternative — if we can just remove the problematic rules from the traditional code, then it’s no longer “imperative” to adopt the alternate code.

We get a specific reason to think that changing codes to maintain public confidence is reasonable here — the council’s success depends on the public’s having confidence. Changing might not always be reasonable, but the author gives a specific reason to think it may be here.

(E) tells us that the alternate code doesn’t have many provisions that are criticized as obscure/unnecessary. This is a point in favor of the alternate code, because we know the traditional code has a “large number” of obscure/unnecessary rules.