I'm going with B on this one.

A) I don't think A fits anywhere. will hold
C)more sophisticated means ?? eliminate
D) abolish?? elminate
E)Insanity is a factor, as it can be evidence or defense. elminate

I negated B and feels:
Sanity is not a necessary element for commission of crime./this collapses.

The second sentence is !@)#*)$*# long for a conclusion to say Insanity can defend the offender.

Well, this question seems "home-made" to me. Practicing on flawed questions will lead one to have a flawed understanding of the test; so practicing on such questions can hurt your score (more than it can help).

What makes this question so bad? Well, where to start--at least three reasons jump off the screen. First, "Which of the following may be assumed from the preceding passage?" isn't proper form. If we interpret "may be assumed" to mean "can be properly inferred," then the correct answer is (B). However, the GMAT question writers understand the difference between assumptions and inferences! In fact, the difference between assumptions and inferences would be, I'm sure, quite elementary in the eye of the test-maker--so would you trust a source that didn't grasp this distinction?

Second, this question almost requires you to have field-specific knowledge of law and jurisprudence.

Third, this question-designer is not especially competent at the hardest part of designing CR questions--making wrong answers tempting!

***

For what it's worth:

The author is explaining that there are two conceptions for the manner in which insanity may absolve one of criminal responsibility. To understand the first one, you need to understand that the state (or the Crown, etc.) must establish beyond a reasonable doubt certain "elements" that must be proven to create a judicial basis for convicition (for example, intent, oppporutnity, perhaps motive--the elements would differ depending on the offense).

So, in the first conception, "insanity" stops--by leaving in doubt--the state from being able to prove that one or more of the necessary elements of the offense is in place--the criminal defendant is thereby absolved of any criminal responsibility. In the second conception, "insanity" does not stop the state from proving that the elements are in place--the criminal defendant is not absolved of criminal responsibility, and "insanity" serves as a mere defense. The author refrains from opining on which he prefers--therefore, the first conception may be "true" and (B) can be properly inferred.

@Testluv

Thank you so much...i find this question in Beat the Gmat question bank and even i had the same thoughts that this is not a GMAT type question, but still post it to get some expert comments...

Thank you so much so guiding me, earlier i remember you told me not to pay much attention to the question having heavy formal logic and that worked....Thanks again for your guidance and i hope i keep on getting your genuine suggestions..

Thanks
Atul