Reading Comprehension (RC) | Re: The United States Supreme Courts 1948 ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer fa

5. In the second paragraph, the author asks the question, "...where, then, was the state action that is necessary for invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, given that the restrictive covenants were private contracts?" (lines 19-22) primarily in order to

(A) demonstrate the conceptual incoherence of a distinction employed by the Shelley Court - "conceptual incoherence" is wrong. 
(B) highlight a potentially confusing issue central to understanding the Shelley Court's decision - "potentially confusing issue" is ok. For some, it may not be confusing, but for some, it is "potential.". 
(C) suggest that the Shelley Court did not properly attend to the facts of the case in its decision - "did not properly attend to the facts" is out of scope. 
(D) cast suspicion on the motivations of the individual judges who served on the Shelley Court - out of scope. 
(E) challenge the presuppositions upon which the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
...

Statistics : Posted by Raman109 • on 12 Mar 2023, 20:00 • Replies 11 • Views 4092

---