This is the best answer. The paradoxical situation is the fact that the history of common law is critical to understanding it, but modern study of jurisprudence tends ot ignore the historical roots of common law. The new view of the situation is Goodrich’s view. No other answer states something that occurs in the passage, so you have to pick this one, once you can see what “paradoxical situation” might refer to.

The author doesn’t summarize the history of common law or some other idea. We don't a recounting of the historical development of something.

Goodrich is the only theorist mentioned. We don’t get a discussion of the origin of his ideas, and the author doesn’t evaluate his current work. She simply describes one of his views. She probably agrees with his view, but she doesn’t make any comments about her opinion of his view, so we can’t characterize what the author does as “evaluating.”

The author doesn’t compare past legal theories with modern legal theories. The author discusses the importance of the historical roots of law and then complains about the modern studies of jurisprudence. At no point does the author comment on a past legal theory. There’s a difference between the historical roots of law and a past legal theory.

The author doesn’t advocate anything traditional. If anything, she wants the traditional way law is studied to change. The author may want law to study historical traditions, but that’s different from advocating a traditional school of thought.