Explanation
A. Both authors seem to agree that the institutional legitimacy of the courts is at least partly dependent on the trust in the honesty of judges.
B. Both passages suggest that the ability to debate judicial decisions is an important check on judicial power, although they approach it from different angles.
C. Both authors acknowledge that judges balance various considerations, although Passage A emphasizes moral considerations while Passage B focuses on the functional aspect.
D. Neither author explicitly discusses prudential considerations in nonlegal situations as a point of contention between them.
E. (Correct Response) The author of Passage A argues that judicial candor should not be compromised, as it is a moral obligation. In contrast, the author of Passage B suggests that there might be situations where not being entirely candid could still serve the function of judicial decision-making, which implies that candor could be overruled under certain circumstances.
The authors would most likely disagree on whether judicial candor is an absolute obligation or if it can be overruled in certain circumstances, with Passage A advocating for a moral imperative behind candor and Passage B suggesting a more pragmatic approach.