(C) says, "governmental officials sometimes behave illegally"
The problem with (C) is that it lacks any mention of morality. Having the knowledge that people sometimes act illegally doesn't tell us any information about whether or not those actions are immoral or moral, so this is why we can get rid of (C).
(A) says, "law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another"
(A) looks great. The law cannot cover absolutely everything, so it is possible that an immoral action is legal simply due to the fact that there has not yet been a law made against it. This would contradict the contrapositive of the conditional statement in the stimulus because it is saying that there are occasions when something is immoral but isn't illegal. This is just what we're looking for, so (A) is correct.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
