Thanks for the question! Let’s take a brief overview of the arguments the two are making. Tom is saying that critics who object to judges overruling earlier precedents are wrong and should be ignored. In other word, Tom thinks it’s ok for judges to ignore precedent, since this has happened in the past. Mary, on the other hand, argues that although high courts have done this, they only overruled older rulings that were clearly outdated, and that we shouldn’t overturn recent legal rulings. There’s a disagreement here about whether or not it’s ok to overturn precedent, and this is what (A) points out. Tom would think that the overturning of recent high court precedents wouldn’t harm the legal system, since he thinks judges can ignore precedent in general. Mary, on the other hand, disagrees with (A), as she thinks that recent precedent shouldn’t be ignored; only outdated, old precedent should be overturned.
(B) is wrong because neither of them addresses potential political motivations for the overturning of recent high court precedents. Tom brings up political motivations, but says that the critics of judges who overturn precedent are politically motivated. Mary doesn’t mention it at all.
(C) is wrong because Mary isn’t making any claims about the critics and whether or not they actually advanced the claim Tom cites. That would look something like Mary saying, “Actually, the critics said this…†which doesn’t happen.
(D) is wrong because neither of them talk about the necessity of overturning old precedent. Tom just says that judges should be able to overturn precedent, and Mary says that judges traditionally repudiate old precedent.
(E) is wrong because neither of them talk about how progressive judicial decisions might become outdated later on. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions you may have.
