I had the same question and answered it for myself above. It may help you as well

Thinking about it more, I think a more compelling reason for eliminating B over D is as follows.

Lyle really says that the plays can remain valuable in spite of modernizing the language, and then gives a reason for why this language change may be a good thing.

Perhaps an equivalent would be: "Although no-fat ice cream doesn't taste very good, it is valuable to have a dessert that's low in calories."

Then Carl says: "No, forget that. The whole point of ice cream is to eat something that tastes good."

I think interpreted this way, both authors may agree with B:

Lyle - The loss in aesthetic quality may lesson the plays' usefulness in teaching history, but it doesn't render them completely useless for teaching history.

(To the analogy: The loss in fat may lessen the flavor, but it doesn't completely invalidate the dessert because the loss in flavor has at least one redeeming quality.)

Carl - The loss in aesthetic quality does lessen the plays' usefulness.

(The loss in fat does lessen the flavor.)

Whereas both authors would definitely disagree with each other in D:

Lyle - Changing the language is valuable for teaching history (Low fat ice-cream does have value... in its own way...)

Carl - Changing the language does not have a single redeemable quality (Low fat ice-cream is a scam. Plain and simple.)

Ditto to cacrv567. Carl doesn't talk about either "aesthetic quality" or "increasing the accessibility of...plays". Could we get some further explanation of B vs. D?

I read the stimulus as:

Lyle - We can learn from the plays even if the aesthetic quality of the original is gone.

Carl - No we can't. The whole pedagogical value of the plays is tied up in the original language.

"They could just linger on... in some.. sad... state...."

Haha

I second this question.

I picked (E) on both my original test and on blind review. I thought the theory B outlined was found in lines 42-44 and 57 - 59:

"Perhaps the currently fashionable call for attention to narrative in legal education could have an effect on this."

and

"Still, even mere awareness of the value of narrative could perhaps serve as an important corrective."

Maybe it's too speculative to be considered a theory? Could someone please help me understand where (E) goes wrong.

Thank you in advance!

^ Same question, if these aren't principle questions, what would a principle question look like please. Thank you!

Oh I see! Thank you! If we check that box, are we locked into the old problem sets, or can we toggle between the two?

Thank you again for your help!

Hey sorry about this. You said we could find the old problem sets if we went to Account? Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't see an option for the old problem sets. Could someone help me out please?

Thank you!

PS - And thank you for the hard work in updating them!

Ok, I need some clarification into B and C please.

I got hung up on (B) because "other moral principles" seems so general to me.

It seems like the problem wants us to assume that the other principles are something along the lines of 'always help the police' or 'be honest' or 'assist in justice' or something like that. But, what if there is another overriding principle, and it's "obstruct the police always"?

The problem doesn't give any boundaries to what the other principles are, except that other principles exist. What if the overriding moral principle was 'obtain hot dogs at all costs (even if you have to harm your family)'.

Then we have a widely recognized moral principle that would override an obligation to protect family member from harm (should the two conflict), but it has nothing to do with whether or not you should hide them from the police.

Could someone help clarify this for me?

-----

Ok, also thoughts on (C) and where I think I went wrong and how I came out on the other side. I haven't seen anyone articulate this issue with C so maybe this will help someone in the future.

I thought the second conclusion was a little shaky with assuming that:

hiding an innocent person from the police = obstructing the police in their work.

(Actually, it kind of seems like, if you know the person is innocent, aren't you helping the police if you prevent them from tracking down the wrong person?)

So, the question says:

If you do [not] allow police to find innocent person ---> Then you're obstructing justice

If you're [not] obstructing justice --> Then you do allow police to find innocent person

^ This is basically what C says, but C gets a little to aggressive and misstates "not obstruct" as "assists" -- which is not the logical opposite.

Is it fair to say that if C had read: "presumes that allowing the police to arrest an innocent person is not an obstruction of justice" then it would have been right?

(Another error in C: C mistakenly restates 'police work' as 'justice')