Explanation
A. Neither passage provides a clear stance on whether believing some, but not all, reasons when issuing a decision qualifies as a violation of judicial candor.
B. Public debate of judicial decisions is not directly addressed as a point of contention between the authors of the two passages.
C. (Correct Response) Passage A emphasizes the moral imperative behind judicial candor, suggesting that it is justified regardless of the outcomes it produces. In contrast, Passage B discusses the importance of the practical outcomes of candor, such as the ability to debate and criticize decisions, implying that the justification for candor might lie in its beneficial outcomes.
D. The passages focus on the judicial setting and do not address the broader duty of truth-telling in nonlegal settings.
E. While Passage A criticizes a strictly prudential defense of candor, suggesting that it is not always easy to weigh costs and benefits, it does not provide a direct comparison to the views in Passage B on this matter.
The authors appear to diverge in their views on the justification for judicial candor. Passage A suggests that the duty to be candid is a moral one, not contingent on the outcomes it produces, whereas Passage B seems to argue that the justification for candor comes from considering its beneficial outcomes.