Reading Comprehension

source: McGraw Hill's Conquering GMAT Verbal and writing

The insanity defense in legal proceedings follows from the
assumption that the great majority of people freely choose
to follow the law. However, some individuals-those determined
to be lacking in the appropriate mental capacities-are unable to
choose to follow the law. This scenario presents a conundrum
for legal theorists. If someone is truly unable to follow the law,
is it just to imprison him and punish him for something he did
involuntarily?
Insanity as a legal defense traces back to a case in 1843, when
a man named Daniel M'Naghten attempted to assassinate the British
PrimeMinister. M'Naghten's laywers claimed that the would-be assas-
sin was being persecuted and was driven to commit the crime.
Prosecutors argued that in order to plan and execute the assassina-
tion, M'Naghten must have been in a rational state of mind. After
several experts testi�ed that M'Naghten was insane, he was found
not guilty by reason of insanity, touching off a spirited legal dis-
cussion on the merits of the insanity plea. From these deliberations
emerged what became known as the M'Naghten test, by which jurors
were asked to judge the sanity of a defendant based on two questions.
First, did the defendant know what he was doing when he commit-
ted the crime? And second, did the defendant understand that his
actions were wrong? Jurors were instructed in all cases to presume
the defendant was sane and only acquit on the basis of the insanity
if "it was clearly proved that the accused was laboring under such a
defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he
was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was
doing was wrong."
Later versions of the M'Naghten test included an addendum that
stated in cases in which the accused knew his actions were wrong, he
could be acquitted if the jury determined he acted on the basis of an
irresistible impulse. The implication was that some mental illnesses
are so powerful that they cause people to act in ways that they know
are wrong.

The passage is primarily concerned with evaluating
A. the accuracy of the jury's verdict in the M'Naghten trial
B. the criteria used to determine whether a defendant is insane
C. the relation between mental illness and crime
D. the legal theories and assumptions behind the presumption of
sanity in a defendant
E. whether it is just to imprison the legally insane who commit
crimes

According to the original version of the M'Naghten test, a jury
A. should not construe the defendant's ability to follow a rational
plan as evidence of sanity
B. should not consider mitigating factors when sentencing the
defendant
C. should evaluate how rational the defendant's planning of the
crime appeared
D. should acquit a defendant who satis�es one, but not necessarily
both, of the criteria for legal insanity
E. should only acquit a defendant who is both unaware of his
actions and does not understand they are wrong

The author of the passage would most likely agree that
A. It is dif�cult to reconcile traditional notions of justice with
certain conceptions of mental illness.
B. Jurors should always presume a defendant is sane unless other-
wise directed by the judge.
C. There are no mental illnesses that cause people to act in
ways that they know are wrong and yet are powerless to
resist.
D. The M'Naghten test will continue to evolve as more research is
done on the nature of mental illnesses.
E. A person who is acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity is still
responsible for his actions.

If you choose a choice please explain why.