Explanation
This question asks about a detail mentioned in line 32 of
the passage, the only place where usury is mentioned. We can read right off the
sentence that usury is mentioned as an example of "constraint on contract."
These constraints were not bad things, but rather were examples, in the new
ruling of West Coast, that the law
had restricted the freedom of contract in appropriate ways all along. Let's
turn to the answer choices. (A) is consistent with our understanding. Usury is
the "legal precedent" it's talking about, and the result of West Coast was to overturn Adkins. Choice (B) inaccurately
describes the context of West Coast, because
prior to that ruling the number of hours was not protected by the Court,
according to what we've been told. So (B) is out. Choice (C) is out; this is
not about gender. Choice (D) is inaccurate, because due process, so far as we
know, was never dropped by the Court and thus didn't need to be reinstated; we
don't hear anything about due process after the first paragraph. Choice (E)
goes too far in discussing the "scope of human rights," because this concept
hasn't been addressed or defined in the passage to any extent.
The correct answer is (A).
If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.