Not supported, because there are not any “competing” responsibilities between the court and society. There are competing responsibilities to the defendant and to the court/society; but that’s not what (A) says.

Not supported, too strong. The author argues that this obligation should cause lawyers to alter their arguments or representation of a client, but there’s no suggestion that the obligation will “prevent” lawyers from representing clients known to be guilty.

Not supported. There’s no indication that the obligation helps lawyers uncover facts. Although lawyers should analyze the facts carefully, that doesn’t suggest the obligation to the defendant and to society helps discover facts.

Not supported. The author believes this obligation should influence how lawyers defend clients. There’s no suggestion that the obligation won’t interfere with common defense strategies.

Supported, because the author uses the two-fold obligation as part of an argument for how lawyers should try to take into account both obligations. In fact, the author thinks you can serve both a defendant and the court/society