The first two paragraphs of the passage are concerned with pinpointing the weaknesses in a strict objective approach to legal discourse. The author then introduces, in the last paragraph, legal scholars who "propose replacing such abstract discourse with powerful personal stories (44-45)."
The author goes on to say, "The compelling force of personal narrative can create a sense of empathy between legal insiders and people traditionally excluded from legal discourse and, hence, from power. Such alternative narratives can shatter the complacency of the legal establishment and disturb its tranquility (49-54)." The author ends the passage with the following, "Thus, the engaging power of narrative might play a crucial, positive role in the process of legal reconstruction by overcoming differences in background and training and forming a new collectivity based on emotional empathy (54-58)."
The author uses very strong supporting words, e.g. "compelling force," "shatter complacency," "engaging power of narrative," etc. From the entirety of the passage, you can see that the author is focused on advocating for bringing in this narrative approach to legal discourse. So, it is more accurate to say that he is more than just hopeful and positive about it. He is actually advocating the use of personal stories in legal discourse.
Thus, answer choice (D) is better than answer choice (E). The author is "strongly supportive" of narrative in legal discourse as opposed to merely being "unreservedly optimistic" about it.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
