Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that i...

Hello, I read the thread, because I truly appreciate the discussions made by the various instructors. Regarding diagramming answer choice A, however, my analysis was not paralleled. I do not want to abandon my analysis because it made the most sense to me and led me to the correct answer choice A. And yet, I am worried that it is wrong and led me to the correct answer choice by happenstance. So please read it, and tell me if my reasoning is logical. Answer choice "A": "law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another." I interpreted it as follows: "Not all immoral circumstances are covered by the law." I am aware that the question stem concerns the group of people who cannot conceive of something that can be both "legally permissible," and "immoral." If this group of people -- who, per the principle in the stimulus, cannot conceive of something that is both legally permissible and moral -- believe that there are some immoral actions that are not covered by the law, then they believe that the law does not prohibit some immoral actions. In other words, this group people believe that there is at least one immoral action that is covered by the law, hence not legally prohibited, and therefore legally permitted. However, all immoral actions are legally impermissible per the contrapositive of the conditional principle set forth in the stimulus: LP---->M; contrapositive: ~M---->~LP. Hence the inconsistency/contradiction of they beliefs. In retrospect, I took the pains of explaining my thinking because I am worried that my interpretation and subsequently my qualification of answer choice A (immoral actions-some-legally permissible) is a misinterpretation, and I got lucky. Please confirm whether my logic is correct. Thank you Mazen