A) This is correct. Passage A tells us generally that with historic understanding, past breaches of the principles of justice regarding property should be rectified. Passage B tells us that to do so specifically in regard to Native American lands is a "natural way of reasoning" but doesn't necessarily endorse it.
B) We can knock this one off from it telling us that A is comparing competing views, when A only provides one.
C) This one is easiest to knock off from it telling us that B regards authorities, which in this case, it doesn't really. It mentions laws and takes them to their natural progression, but doesn't cite an authority in doing so.
D) A doesn't so much state a view and provide an argument for it as it explains a view. B does explain a view, but it also provides background for a potential argument.
E) B does not attempt to undermine any view.
Does this help?
Shiyi-ZhangJune 12, 2019
I chose B because I thought the principle of rectification is superior to principle 1 and 2. Why aren't there competing views?
shunheDecember 26, 2019
Hi @Shiyi-Zhang,
I think the "views" here would be in reference to the theories, of which only one is presented. The different principles, on the other hand, all are parts of the theory. The principles are also not mutually exclusive, and so they are not competitive, nor is one offered as a superior one - a hole exists currently, but the author isn't saying the principle of rectification itself is inherently better than the other ones. Hope this helps!
