The question asks us to make an inference about the author's opinion of most modern academic theories of common law. The author tells us "the academic study..[theories] has seldom treated common law as a constantly evolving phenomenon rooted in history; those interpretive theories that do acknowledge the antiquity of common law ignore the practical contemporary significance of its historical forms." (lines 16-21). These lines can be summarized as saying that most modern theories of common law ignore its history and the significance of this historical background on contemporary jurisprudence. The author then proceeds to say that common law as best studied "as a continuously developing tradition." Taken together, we can infer that the author argues that most theories lack an essential dimension (historical evolution) that would increase their accuracy (B).
Anthony-Resendeson March 4, 2021
@Irina. So I understand your explanation regarding the ignoring of the history of common law but I dont understand how we can then make the connection to saying this would improve their accuracy. I just understand they said modern academic need to not omit or ignore the historical significance of common law, I did not think this also would infer that if they were not to omit the historical significance this would improve accuracy? When the author says best studied, does this infer the increase in accuracy?
