Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at this stimulus. We’re told in the first sentence that there’s this idea that written constitutions are inherently more liberal than unwritten ones, and that this idea is false. Then, the rest of the argument goes toward supporting this idea. So this whole passage is about the idea of how liberal a constitution can be, and what the procedure is for the liberalization of a constitution. (E) says the main point is that there are criteria for evaluating the interpretation and application of a constitution. But based on the summary I just gave, that’s not the main point. That would just be like “here’s some criteria we could use to interpret and apply a constitution” or something like that.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
