Thanks for the question! So we’re asked for the main purpose of the second paragraph here. (B) says it’s to evaluate the theory of legal positivism, and (D) says it’s to identify the basic tenets of legal positivism. What’s the difference, and which one is right?
Well, it’s one thing to just identify the basic tenets of an argument, and another to evaluate it. Identifying the basic tenets is just basically saying what that argument is. Evaluating it, on the other hand, requires thinking about if it’s good or bad, and what its strengths and weaknesses are. So let’s take the following argument:
Kamala Harris is a great VP pick for Joe Biden because she has a very progressive record in the Senate.
Identifying the basic tenets of this argument are just figuring out what exactly it’s saying. So the conclusion that thinks that Harris is a great VP pick, and the premises that support it, that she has a progressive record in the Senate. That’s it.
Evaluating the argument goes a step further. Is the premise actually true, does she actually have a very progressive record in the Senate? Even if it’s true, does that support the conclusion, is there a connection there? Are there other things we should be considering?
So what is this paragraph doing? Well, it’s just telling us what legal positivism is. It’s not evaluating it, it’s not looking at how good or bad the idea is. And that’s why (B) is correct and (D) is wrong.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
