B. "Moral considerations should be given significant weight in the standards and practices of the judiciary."
There is no mention of morality in Passage B, so answer choice B satisfies the second half of our question. There is a discussion of morality in Passage A, but do we have enough support to say that moral considerations should be given "significant weight?" I believe that we get what we need from paragraph 3. On what grounds does the author reject the prudential defense of judicial sincerity? Basically, the author says that honesty should not be justified only when it results in "good outcomes." Honesty is justified for its own sake. The author applies this moral principle to the judiciary on line 24. She then suggests a new moral defense of judicial sincerity. Although she doesn't add much detail, there is already plenty of support to confirm our "significant" weight from answer choice B.
