We know from the passage that the author believes that modern jurisprudence is not doing a good job because it's failing to take into account the history of law. In the answer choices, we're looking for one that paraphrases our prediction.
Answer A is correct because it accurately states the author's beliefs. The author believes that modern jurisprudence is misinterpreting the nature of the legal tradition.
You asked if A is correct because of the author's discussion of Goodrich in the last paragraph. A is correct not just because of this, but because this is the message we get throughout the passage. Other key points in the text that show us the author's belief about the history of law in relation to modern jurisprudence are in the last sentence of the first paragraph, where she states, "common law cannot be properly understood without taking a long historical view." This implies that the author believes that history is essential in understanding common law, and therefore is also essential in understanding jurisprudence.
The first sentence of the second paragraph also gives us a clue as to how the author views modern jurisprudence in stating that it has seldom treated common law as a constantly evolving phenomenon rooted in history.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!