(C) summarizes the point of the entire passage. The author's overarching argument is that schools should provide training in statutory law. The first paragraphs talk about how statutory law helps builds the skill if interpreting statutes, the third focuses on how it helps synthesis, and the last paragraph talks about a possible argument against teaching statutory law, which is encapsulated in the first part of (C).
(E), on the other hand, is wrong because it's too strong. The author isn't arguing that law schools "fail to impart the skills necessary for the analysis of legal information." To say this was a claim of the author would mean that the author was claiming that law schools in general are failing in this regard, which isn't mentioned in the passage at all.
(A) is wrong because the statute doesn't even mention implementing a standard national curriculum in statutory law, so that definitely can't be the main point.
(B) is wrong because the author never claims that statutory law is 'more important" than case analysis, or that the relative emphasis should be reversed. The author claims only that more focus should be given to working on statutory law.
(D) is wrong because the passage focuses on statutory law, not case law. Hope this helps!
