Hi Medas, I think C is the right answer, but let's explore a bit about why that is. We are looking for something that the supporters of court adjudication would agree with, and their view is highlighted in the second paragraph. We are told that, among the other reasons in favor of adjudication, it allows the law to be refined through the establishment of precedent. We find this in lines 39-43.
C states that mediation is unlikely to guide the resolution of future disputes with similar issues at play. This conforms to our understanding of the view of court proponents. They value the establishment of precedent in order to guide future cases with a similar issue at stake. However, mediation offers no such precedence.
I think from your question that you may have read C as mediation helps the people involved in the original case to resolve other, unrelated disputes in the future. While this may be true, that is not what C states. C is only in reference to "similar disputes" among "other parties." Not the same parties at a future date.
ShulaOctober 13, 2023
Hi Emil, could you explain why E is incorrect? Thank you so much!
Emil-KunkinOctober 14, 2023
What do you like about E? I'm not seeing anything in the passage that supports the idea that it matters if the general public has access to hearings.
