Explanation
This question asks us for an inference. The correct answer
could hit on a point that is central to the message of the passage, or it could
appear to come from nowhere. We can evaluate the answer choices based on the
main idea. Namely, the point of West
Coast was that the Court decided that it could restrict working hours,
since it had all along been reasonably restricting workers' contracts for their
protection. (A), (B), and (C) are all contrary to that basic point. (D) is plausible, but unsupported. Choice (E) must be correct,
because if it's not, it will generate an inconsistency with the passage. The
point of Justice Roberts was that constraints such as usury had existed prior West Coast, and he was referring to
these constraints as evidence, not attacking them. Therefore, pressures such as
usury were indeed "subject to constraint through legislation."
The correct answer is (E).
Passage 11
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.