This doesn’t capture Goodrich’s solution described in the last paragraph. The main point isn’t that the influence of common law can explain certain terminology and subject matter divisions. It’s that Goodrich has a solution for the lack of attention given to common law’s history during the academic study of law.

This doesn’t capture Goodrich’s solution described in the last paragraph. Also, the author never suggests that theoretical interpretations have conflicted with political interpretations. The author mentions the theoretical and political reasons that the study of law has treated law as a coherent whole. But she never suggests that there’s a conflict between the theoretical and the political.

This misdescribes Goodrich’s view. Goodrich doesn’t advocate for treating common law as “system of rules.”

This best captures the main point, which is that Goodrich argues common law should be treated as a continually developing tradition. This is the main point because the author presents what Goodrich argues for as a potential solution to the problem described in P2.

This doesn’t capture Goodrich’s solution described in the last paragraph. The main point isn’t about the lack of fairness of common law. It’s that Goodrich has a solution for the lack of attention given to common law’s history during the academic study of law.