In this scenario, someone uses a metaphor to help describe something. That’s not how legal scholars use the UM principle. They use it to show how two seemingly opposed or incompatible things are really aligned.

In this scenario, an idea (a law of optics) is used to show how two seemingly unaligned things are actually aligned. This is quite a literal example of how legal scholars use the UM principle: they use it to show how two sides of a debate, which appear to argue in different directions, are actually aligned with each other.

In this scenario, someone uses one idea (a quotation) to support another idea (competition between plants). That’s not how legal scholars use the UM principle. They’re not supporting a single idea—they’re showing how two seemingly different ideas are actually aligned.

In this scenario, someone uses evidence to support a conclusion (a legal decision). That’s not how legal scholars use the UM principle. They’re not supporting a single position—they’re showing how two seemingly different positions are actually aligned.

In this scenario, someone uses an idea (a quotation) in order to set a tone. This isn’t quite right. We’re looking for a scenario in which an idea is used to show how two seemingly opposed or incompatible things are really aligned. (E) would be right if the mediator’s quotation actually showed how the two seemingly opposed parties in a bargaining session are actually in agreement, not opposed to each other.