Passage A describes the blackmail paradox as the fact that two acts that are each legal separately become illegal when combined, i.e. it is legal to disclose information due to freedom of speech and it is legal to ask for money. Passage B tells us that Roman law did not consider the legality or illegality of the action itself only whether the action caused harm, meaning if shameful private information caused harm if revealed, such reveal would be illegal. This approach suggests that comparable free speech protections did not apply and even true disclosure could be illegal if it caused harm, therefore, we can conclude that there was no blackmail paradox because at least one of the elements of blackmail (disclosure) is illegal if it causes harm as opposed to both elements being legal as passage A states, Hence, we can conclude that (A) is correct.
Let's look at the rest of the answer choices.
(B) Blackmail was more widely practiced in Roman antiquity because Roman law did not specifically prohibit blackmail.
This is an unwarranted inference. Roman law did not have a special category for blackmail but it still considered the actions that constitute blackmail illegal and focused on the harm element.
(C) In general, Canadian and U.S. common law grant more freedoms that classical Roman law granted.
This is also an unwarranted inference. We could imply that the extent of freedom of speech protections was more limited but we have no information about any other freedoms to reach a general conclusion.
(D) The best justification for the illegality of blackmail in Canadian & US law is the damage blackmail can cause to the victim's reputation.
This statement contradicts that information in Passage A. The author of passage A suggests that blackmail is criminal because it involves the misuse of a third party for the blackmailer's own benefit not because it causes harm, which is the justification used in Roman law.
(E) Unlike Roman law, Canadian an U.S. common law do not recognize the interest of public authorities in having certain types of info revealed.
This is an unwarranted inference, neither passage discusses Canadian/ US authorities take on having certain information revealed due to public interest.
Let me know if this helps and if you have any further questions.
