Explanation
A. Passage A emphasizes that candor is a moral imperative, contradicting the idea that it could be a rule that might be set aside under certain conditions. Passage B does not address this as a central theme.
B. Insufficient guidance for litigants due to a lack of judicial candor is not explicitly discussed in either passage.
C. Both passages do not suggest that the lack of judicial candor is an unavoidable result of conflicting demands.
D. (Correct Response) Passage A acknowledges that there are prudential reasons supporting judicial candor but ultimately argues that these are insufficient on their own, without moral backing. This implies that there could be positive benefits to candor in a prudential sense. Passage B, while arguing for candor, acknowledges that judges who do not state their true reasons for decisions may still have valid judgments that can be debated, attacked, and defended, which suggests that there could be some benefits under certain circumstances.
E. Although Passage B discusses the detectability of a lack of candor, it does not imply that all instances of insufficient candor will inevitably be discovered over time. More importantly, passage A does not address or support this idea at all.
Both passages imply that while judicial candor is the preferred norm, there may be situations where a lack of candor could have positive benefits, whether it be in maintaining the appearance of the courts' legitimacy or allowing decisions to still function within the judicial system despite a lack of candor.