@MickeyClaffey thanks pal

A: stimulus is not about permission; it's about punishment after doing the act. subtle difference. so this is off-topic.

B: yes, this is also about punishment, and holds author's view

C: again, stimulus is not about permission

D: stimulus is not about law enforcement, it's about punishment. it does not say, "oh we can't stop you from stealing so just go ahead and do it." it says "so you stole, how harsh should the punishment be?"

E: maybe mitigating punishment could be considered a legal system, but the stimulus definitely never talks about disastrous consequences, so this is coming out of left field

Ultimately I got lost in the sauce and a rework of my understanding of the task helped me find clarity:

The condition is that if you are obligated to do something ("ought"), then you are capable of doing it. But then the Ethicist poses a counterexample of someone who promised to do something but then could not. Now the disconnect becomes clear: is a promise the same as an obligation? It must be for the sake of the counter example. If a promise is not the same as an obligation, then we cannot infer the necessary condition (being capable of doing it).

Answer D is not only the sole answer that addresses this, but also goes further to "set the stage" by adding that obligations are not relieved if promises can't be kept. This merely repeats that if an obligation does not exist, then we cannot infer the necessary condition.

Where I got tripped up: The Ethicist is arguing that this principle has a counterexample. The thing is, this counterexample can't apply unless the conditions of the principle are entirely fulfilled—same as in any experiment. So we are not looking for something that necessarily supports his counterexample, but something that proves he has "set the stage" duly.

to benefit constituents, legislators need to think about the consequences.

currently, legislatures do NOT benefit constituents. Valid inference: therefore, they must not think about the consequences.

Task: WHY do they not?

I chose D at first and A in blind review bc I gaslit myself, but A doesn't actually explain anything about not considering the consequences--it just restates that legislation doesn't benefit people. D actually gives a cause and effect, even though the wording is a bit imprecise, which tripped me up.

I feel like for #5 part of the sufficient condition should be being in the US. First, it is specified; second, common sense supports that some countries have different ages. I did 21 & US -> A, which basically worked, but I was still surprised to see the explanation say "or older" was the conjunction.