Thanks for the question! We need to figure out the primary purpose of the passage, so let’s get a big picture view of it. The first paragraph introduces the law-and-literature movement and generally talks about its successes, though it seems doubtful about how great the movement actually is. The second paragraph elaborates on Posner’s critiques of the movement, starting with the assumption that lawyers can offer special insights into literature that deals with legal matters. The third paragraph talks about another one of Posner’s critiques, which is that the notion that literary criticism can be helpful in interpreting law is problematic. Finally, the last paragraph talks about why Posner thinks law-and-literature is a field with “promise,†which it attributes to his attempt to appease his detractors. This shows his acknowledgement of the movement’s success while still disagreeing with the intellectual ideas behind the movement itself. As we can see by this summary, the passage primarily goes through Posner’s arguments to view the law-and-literature movement, and this is what (A) tells us.
(B), on the other hand, is incorrect because the author of the passage actually seems to be doing the opposite. The author of the passage seems to agree with Posner’s critiques of the law-and-literature movement, and so wouldn’t assert that a beneficial relationship exists between the study of the two, since that’s what the movement asserts. We can see this view of the author’s in sentences like the second-to-last one, where he writes that others need to draw the conclusion from Posner’s cogent analysis about the lack of intellectual respect the law-and-literature movement deserves. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions if you have them.
