Thanks for the question! So we’re being asked here for what the realists believe to be true of the dicta in a judge’s written opinion. For this, let’s turn to lines 34-42, where we’re told that the realists think that the holding/dicta distinction isn’t kept super strictly in the common-law system, and so future judges might classify certain parts as dicta and certain parts as holding differently from the original judge, which is what (D) tells us.
(B), on the other hand, is incorrect because it tells us that the judge’s decision would be disputed by subsequent judges on the basis of legal rules expressed in the dicta. However, this isn’t necessarily the case. It’s possible that a judge’s decision is disputed on the basis of legal rules not expressed in the dicta. It’s possible that a judge’s decision isn’t even disputed in the first place. We’re not told anything in the passage about judges overturning decisions, and so we can’t infer anything about that process from the text (this is where it’s important to not bring in too much outside information). The wording is also just too strong; as said earlier, it’s not like a judge’s decision will always be disputed based on dicta, since some aren’t disputed at all, and others are disputed on other grounds.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
